Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Land Acquisition Dispute
The Judgment in the Case of Barla Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana & Connected Appeals (Civil Appeal No. __________ 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3150 – 3151 / 2023), was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 22nd April 2025. The case primarily deals with the enhancement of compensation for land acquisition in Narsingi and Poppalguda villages for the Outer Ring Road project in Hyderabad. The Supreme Court upheld the landowner’s claims, ruling that the High Court undervalued the land and the deductions applied were excessive.
Facts of the Case
ThepresentAppeals originate from disputes concerning the market value assessment of land acquired in Narsingi and Poppalguda villages, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the construction of the Outer Ring Road (ORR) in Hyderabad. The State of Telangana initiated three distinct acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The first acquisition, notified on 13.12.2005, involved 31 acres, 33 guntas in Narsingi. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) initially awarded INR 7,56,000 per acre, but the Reference Court later enhanced it to INR 28,00,000 per acre. The second acquisition, also notified on 13.12.2005, was for 48 acres, 37 guntas in Poppalguda. The LAC’s initial award of INR 5,45,000 per acre was enhanced to INR 18,75,000 per acre by the Reference Court. The third acquisition, notified on 04.04.2006, involved 30 acres in Narsingi and Poppalguda. Invoking urgency provisions, the State quickly acquired the land. The LAC awarded INR 7,56,000 per acre, which the Reference Court increased to INR 9,45,000 per acre.
Landowners accepted the LAC’s compensation under protest. The High Court, in its judgments, further increased the compensation to a uniform rate of INR 1,35,00,000 per acre across all three acquisitions. This enhancement was primarily based on sales of plots in the ‘Golden Mile’ project, which had fetched higher prices. The High Court applied a 70% deduction to the ‘Golden Mile’ upset price to account for factors like plot size and development costs. The High Court also granted solatium at 30% and interest at 12% per annum on enhanced compensation. The landowners, State of Telangana, and Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) filed cross-Appeals, leading to the present case.
Main Issues:
- Whether the market value of the acquired land was correctly assessed by the High Court.
- Whether the High Court’s reliance on the ‘Golden Mile’ project sales was appropriate for determining compensation.
- Whether the deductions applied by the High Court in determining the final compensation amount were justified.
- Whether further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court is warranted.
Contentions of the Parties
Appellant Contentions (Landowners):
The landowners argued that the market value of the acquired land was higher than what the High Court had assessed. They submitted that the ‘Golden Mile’ project sales were representative of the true market value, especially considering the rapid development in the area and the acquired land’s potential. They contended that the average sale price of the plots in the Golden Mile project should have been used as the benchmark, rather than the upset price. They also relied on other sale instances (Set B and Set C Exhibits), arguing that these were relevant and should have been considered for assessing compensation. They sought further enhancement of the compensation, claiming that the 70% deduction applied by the High Court was excessive.
Respondent Contentions (State of Telangana and HMDA):
The State of Telangana and HMDA, on the other hand, argued that the High Court’s enhancement of compensation was excessively high and unrealistic. They questioned the reliance on the ‘Golden Mile’ project sales, suggesting that these were not truly comparable to the acquired lands. They claimed that the High Court’s assessment led to an inflated market value, and the compensation awarded should be reduced.
Supreme Court :
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, held that the market value of the acquired land was greater than what was assessed by the High Court. The Supreme Court stated that the acquired lands had very high potentiality. The Court also found that the High Court’s 70% deduction was excessive. The Supreme Court noted that the acquired lands were better situated than the lands in the Golden Mile project.The Supreme Court concluded that the landowners were entitled to enhanced compensation.
Parichaya Reddy
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “What is an FIR? | How to File an FIR” in India Legal Tips can be viewed at the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQapMJ6-SNQ&t=1s
Leave a Reply