1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present:- Sri K.Seshagiri Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Monday the 8th day of February, 2016

L.A.O.P.NO. 63 OF 2006.
Between:-
1. Mehtab Ali S/o. Khaja Sab R/o. Lonokur.
2. Medapathi Mallaiah S/o. Sangaiah (died) per L.Rs.
Claimants No.5, 6 and 7).

3. Lingamgari Nagshetty S/o. Basappa. (died per L.Rs) Cs-8 to 11

4. Lingamgari Veeramanemma W/o. Nagshetty.
5. Moudpathi Siddamma W/o. Late Mallaiah, 65 yrs,
6. M.Sangameshwar S/o. Late Mallaiah, 35 yrs,
7. M.Veeresham S/o. Late Mallaiah,

(Claimants No.5, 6 and 7 are resident of Lonikurd(v), of

Munipally Mandal and they are added as claimants vide
order dated: 16-11-2007 in I.A.1371/2007 of C-2 on the file of this court).
8. L.Veera Manemma W/o. Late Nagishetty.
9. L.Satish Kumar S/o. Late Nagishetty.
10. L.Santosh Kumar S/o. Late Nagishetty.
11 L.Sangameshwar S/o. Late Nagishetty.
All are R/o. Lonikurdh(v), Munipally Mandal. Medak Dist.
(C-8 to C-11 are brought on record as L.Rs. Of C-3 as per orders
in I.A. 16/2011 dated: 7-2-2011.
Claimants.
And.
The State of A.P. through,
Special Deputy Collector(L.A),
Singoor Project, Medak at Sangareddy.

Respondent.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri I Revinder Reddy, Advocate for the claimants 1, 4 to 7 and 8 to 11 and Sri
V.Hanmantha Reddy, Govt. Pleader, for respondent, upon perusing the material
on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court made the following:-

O R D E R:

1. This reference was made U/S.18 of Land Acquisition Act,

1894(for short the Act) by the L.A.O. who be the Special Deputy

Collector, Singoor project, Medak Dist. at Sangareddy(for short

L.A.O) for determination of true and correct market value of the land

and structures of the house buildings pertaining to the claimants of

Lunikurd(v), of Munipally Mandal which were acquired for the

purpose of construction of Singoor Project.

 2

(a) There is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of the

properties of the claimants. The only dispute is with regard to the

assessment of value of the property acquired and quantum of

compensation fixed by the L.A.O. by making an award.

(b) The following are the details of the acquisition of the

properties and their respective claimants.

Sl.No. Name House No. Extent of plinth area.

1. Mehtab Ali S/o. Khaja Sab. 1-8/3 25-16 sq. meters.
2. Medapathi Mallaiah S/o. 1-66 70-6 meter.
Sangaiah (died) per L.Rs.
3. Lingamgari Nagshetty S/o. 1-75/5 22-01 gunta.
Basappa.(died per L.Rs.
4. Lingamgari Veeramanemma 1-74/5 70-40 sq. meters.
W/o. Nagshetty.

2. The details of the acquisitions made by the L.A.O. in this case.

A. Property acquired house and open site pertaining to the

above individuals.

B. Date of notification U/S.4(1) of the Act. : 5-5-1993.

C. Date of the award. : 25-5-1994.

D.Date of possession taken by L.A.O. : 25-5-1994.

E. Market value detailed under award.

They are shown below in tabular form for convenience

sake.

Sl.No Name of the House Extent of Rate per Structur Total value.
claimant. No land in sq. e value.
sq. meter meter.
1 Mehtab Ali. 1. 1-8/3 20-16 gts 6-00 8,932-00 9,083-00
--
2. M.Mallaiah. 1-66 70-63 6-00 13,118/- 13-541-00
3. L.Nagshetty 1-75/5 22-01 6-00 35,840/- 35,972-05
4. K,Veeraman 1-74/5 70-04 6-00 19,146/- 19,568-40
emma.
 3

F. Total amount of compensation awarded including benefits

U/S.23 of the Act.

(1) Mehtab Ali. Rs. 13,987-90 +

115-50.

(2) M.Mallaiah. Rs. 20,854-30

(3) L.Nagshetty Rs. 30,135-35
(4) L.Veera Manemmma Rs. 55,396-95

3. The claimants filed their respective claims and the allegations in

all claim statements are one and the same. They state that the L.A.O.

did not consider their claims in a proper perspecstive and they simply

relied on the valuation statements prepared by the staff of the

Engineering Department concerned, that the valuation of the land and

structures are shown very meager and that the compensation

awarded is very very poor and that they have received the said award

amount under the protest and thereafter this reference was got made

by them

4. The respondent, L.A.O. did not choose to file any counter as is

found.

5. To substantiate the case of the claimants, the claimant no.9

who is one of the legal representatives of the deceased Nagshetty is

examined as PW1. One Chandrashekar Konda who is a qualified and

Architectural Engineer is examined as PW2. One M.Nagshetty who is

one of the claimants in O.P.No.76/2003 is examined as PW3 and he

states that the L.A.O. did not consider the claims of the claimants in a

proper and reasonable manner, that PW2 along with his assistants

came to the village and valued the properties acquired by taking

 4

much pains in measuring the properties and valuing the structures

etc., etc.,

6. One P.Murlidhar resident of Takkadpally who is one of the

claimants in O.P.No.240/1996 is examined as PW4 and he states

about the enhancement of the compensation under the reference

made in O.P.240/1996.

7. The claimants got the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P13 so

as to prove the correct values of the properties acquired and the

earlier judgments made in respect of the enhancement of values of

the property acquired in similar manner for the purpose of

construction of Singoor Project.

8. The respondent filed his chief-examination affidavit through one

P.Gopal Rao who is Special Deputy Collector(L.A), Singoor Project of

Sangareddy. As he did not turn-up subsequently to face the cross-

examination, his evidence is eschewed /closed. But a document

called as award copy is marked as Ex.B1 with consent as the

claimants reported no objection for getting it marked as such. Ex.B1

discloses what is the ultimate compensation was awarded and paid

to the claimants who received the same under protest.

9. Heard the counsel on either side.

10. The point for determination is:-

(1). Whether the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. to the

structures of the house buildings and open site/land acquired
from the claimants is in-adequate, if so what would be the
compensation amount that has to be granted to the claimants?

2. To what relief?
 5

POINT NO.1:-

11. As already mentioned above, the respondent/L.A.O. did not

choose to get himself examined as a witness to deny the allegations

made by the claimants by placing all the documents relevant. There

is no document filed by the respondent to show as to how the value

of the properties are assessed and what is the mode adopted by him

in assessing the value of the property. Except a bald statement in

respect of the value of the open land and the value of the structures

of the house buildings, there is no scientific evidence placed by the

respondent.

12. Whereas, it is the contention of the claimants that the

Engineering Department concerned did not value the properties in a

proper and scientifc way and that they simply mentioned some values

and prepared to pay compensation in a hurried manner. The

respondent did not hear the representations made by the claimants in

respect of proper and reasonable estimation of their properties which

are acquired. They further contend that there are many villages

acquired for the purpose of construction of Singoor Project and many

compensation O.Ps.(L.A.O.Ps.) have been disposed off by the

Hon'ble District Judges at Sangareddy and also the Senior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy. They further contend that in all the earlier

L.A.O.Ps. all the courts unanimously enhanced the rate of the land

from Rs.6-00 per square meter to Rs.8-00 per square meter and also

enhanced the value of the structures basing on the reports filed by

the Architectural Engineer by name Chandrashekar Konda. They also

contend that the L.A.O.s did not prefer any appeals against the said
 6

judgments/orders. They further contend that against one of the orders

made by the Hon'ble Addl. District Judge in O.P.44/1997, the Hon'ble

High Court also up-held the order of District Court in O.P.44/1997 and

the relevant Civil Miscellaneous Petition before the Hon'ble High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is 22945/2003. Thus, almost all

every L.A.O.P. disposed off by the courts of Sangareddy are allowed

to become final and no appeals have been preferred by the

Government/L.A.O.

13. I have carefully examined the documents that are marked as

Exs.P1 to P13, among them Exs.P1 to P4 are Abstract statements

showing the value of the structures pertaining to the claimants

respectively. Ex.P5 is Bunch of notices issued by the claimants

intimating to the respondent about the visit of the private engineer

architecture for the purpose of re-assessment of the values of the

properties and requested the L.A.O. to be present during the course

of such inspection of the properties of the claimants. According to the

claimants, inspite of the said notices, the respondent did not choose

to appear or depute any of the officer to be present. Ex.P6 is copies

of the panchanamas in respect of conducting such inspection of the

properties of the claimants and assessing their values by PW2 and

his assistance. Ex.P7 is a copy of the standard schedule rates of

Nizambad, Medak, Adilabad Districts for the year, 1993-1994 being

maintained by the Government of A.P. Irrigation and C.A.D.

Department. Exs.P8 and P9 are Data sheet and lead statements in

respect of rates and expenses incurred for the construction of the

houses which are acquired by the Government. Exs.P10 to P12 are

 7

judgment and decree copies in O.P. Nos.57/1988, 240/1996 and

47/2003 respectively. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of common judgment

and decree in L.A.O.P.Nos. 74 to 79/2003 dated: 21-3-2013

14. As contended by the claimants necessarily earlier

judgments/orders made by the Hon'ble District Judges are also

relevant to take help of the same in coming to a conclusion with

regard to proper and just values of the properties. In all the above

judgments, the Hon'ble Judges decided unanimously the rate of

land/site as Rs.8-00 per square meter. Thus the value of the land as

fixed by the L.A.O. at Rs.6-00 is enhanced to Rs.8-00 per sq. meter.

So also the Hon'ble Judges have taken the assessment made by the

Architectural Engineer by name Chandrashekar Konda into

consideration and after evaluation of other evidence in the matters,

they came to a conclusion that further depreciation has to be taken

into consideration to decide the quantum of enhancement on the

assessment of the structures and its value made by the said

engineer. In all most all every case of land acquisition belonging this

village and surrounding villages, the same engineer Chandrashekar

Konda was the person who assessed the value in a scientific manner

taking all the aspects into consideration including by following

schedule rates fixed by the Government as in Ex.P7.

15. Thus, basing on the judgments of the Hon'ble District Judges at

Sangareddy which are marked as Exs.P10 to P13 this court comes to

a conclusion that the prices of the open land/site has to be enhanced

to Rs.8 per sq. meter from Rs.6-00 per sq. meter. So also the value of

the structures have to be taken into consideration as decided by the

 8

Architectural Engineer who is examined as PW2 in this matter. But, at

the same time further depreciation shall also be taken into

consideration and the percentage of depreciation shall also be fixed.

Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that it would be just and

proper to fix the percentage of depreciation of the house

properties/structures at thirty(30%) percent over the value estimated

by the Architectural Engineer by name Chandrashekar Konda who is

examined as PW2.

16. Thus, taking all those things into consideration, the following is

enhancement of the open land/site and the structures belonging to

the claimants 1 to 4 subsequently claimants 2 and 3 died pendente-

lite and their L.Rs. are brought on record. The enhancements

are shown in the tabular form, below.

Clai Awardee's Name. House Extent Structure Exhibit Value estimated Value of the
mant Numbe Sq. value fixed based on by PW2 structure already
Num r. meter. by the Architectural awarded in this
ber. L.A.O. Engineer. reference.
1. Mehtab Ali. 1-8/3 25-16 Rs. 8,932/- Ex.P1 Rs.72,000-00 Rs.50,400-00
2. M.Mallaiah S/o. 1-66 70-63 13,118/- Ex.P2 Rs. 1,05,000-00 Rs.73,500-00
Sangaiah. Per L.Rs.
C-5 to C7 namely;

1. M.Siddamma.
2.
M.Sagameshwar.
3. M.Veeresham.
3. C.Nagshetty S/o. 1-75/5 22-01 35,840/- Ex.P3 Rs.2,70,000-00 Rs. 1,89,000-00
Basappa died per
L.Rs. C-8 to C-11).

1. C.Veera
Manemma.
2. C.Satish Kumar.
3. L.Santosh
Kumar.
4.
L.Sangameshwar.

4. L.Veera Manemma 1-74/5 70-04 19,146/- Ex.P4 Rs.1,50,000-00 Rs.1,05,000-00

W/o. Late
Nagshetty.
 9

17. Accordingly, the reference is answered raising the value of the

acquired structures under Exs.P1 to P4 as per Column No.8 of the

tabler form shown above after deducting 30% of the amount

estimated by PW2(Architectural Engineer) as shown in Column No.7

of the above table and also fixing the market value of the land at

Rs.08-00(Rs.Rupees Eight per square meter).

18. Further, the claimants are entitled to:-

(1) Additional market value at 12% P.A. U/S.23-1A of the Act,

from the date of notification till the date of taking possession or

passing the award whichever is earlier.

(2) Solatium at 30%.

(3) Interest at 9% for one year and thereafter at 15% P.A. till

the date of realization. The claimants are entitled for interest on 30%

solatium in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported

in 2005(5) ALD(S.C.) and also entitled for costs of this petition.

The Respondent/State is directed to deposit the amount within

three(3) months from the date of this award.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of February, 2016.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS.
PW1 L. Satish Kumar. Nil.
PW2 Chandra Shekar Konda. Architectural Engineer.
PW3 M.Sangshetty.
PW4 P.Muralidhar.
 10

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

Exs.P1 to P4 are Abstract statements showing the value of the structures

pertaining to the claimants respectively.
Ex.P5 Bunch of notices issued by the claimants to respondent.
Ex.P6 Copy of the panchanamas in respect of conducting inspection of the
properties.
Ex.P7 Copy of the standard schedule rates of Nizambad, Medak, Adilabad
Districts for the year, 1993-1994.
Exs.P8 and P9 are Data sheet and lead statements in respect of rates and
expenses.
Exs.P10 to P12 are judgment and decree copies in O.P. Nos.57/1988,
240/1996 and 47/2003 respectively.
Ex.P13 Certified copy of decree and common judgment in LAOPs. 74 to 79/2003
dated: 21-3-2013.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS.

Ex.B-1 Award Copy.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.
11