Lao Sdc v. D.Devender Reddy

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI A.S. No. 285 OF 2004:

JUDGMENT (ORAL): ( per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT) 1.

Vide present appeal, the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has challenged the order dated 17.11.1999 passed in OP.No.117 of 1995.

2.

This appeal is filed on the grounds inter alia that the learned Court below in enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.23,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the Court below ought to have held that the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable in arriving at the market value of the acquired land. 3.

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-LAO submits that the lower Court erred in relying upon Ex.A.1-Sale Deed pertaining to small extent of land which cannot be compared with that of the larger extent of land. More over, the learned Court below ought to have seen that the claimants failed to adduce any evidence in support of their case except filing Exs.A.1-Sale Deed and Ex.A.2-judgment bringing out the comparable features. 4.

In the present case, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAO, the respondents-Claimants sought reference

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in OP. NO.117 of 1995.

5.

It is not in dispute that the land situated at Repaka, Kanaparthy and Lingala villages of Ragonda Mandal, starts from K.M.stone number 59.574 to 62.628, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of digging Kakatiya Irrigation Canal. The total extent of 32.35 acres of land was acquired for the said purpose. Accordingly the Government issued draft notification under Section 4(i) of the LA Act which was published in the gazette on 16.07.1991 and notice under Section 9(1) of the LA Act was issued on 15.11.1993. After giving notices to the effected riots/claimants, an enquiry was conducted and award was passed on 11.1.1994. The LAO fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.23,000/- per acre.

6.

Aggrieved by the market value fixed by the LAO, the respondents/claimants sought reference as mentioned supra by claiming that there are developments near and around the subject lands acquired by the Government and the LAO has not taken into consideration the actual developments made therein; thereby the correct market value was not arrived at. The compensation awarded by the LAO is meagre and in fact the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre.

7.

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant-LAO, it was contended that the compensation awarded by LAO is correct and he had taken into consideration the actual market value of the land basing on the available sale deeds. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are not entitled to any enhancement.

8.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Court below determined the point that arose for consideration as to whether the respondents/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed; if so, at what rate. 9.

In the reference petition as mentioned above, the respondent/claimant No.26 was examined as P.W.1 and respondent/Claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.2. More over P.W.3 to P.W.5 were examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants to support their claim. In the claim petition, Claimant No.4 was examined as P.W.6 to establish that he was running a school nearby the acquired land. Exs. A.1 and A.2 .

10.

On behalf of the appellant/LAO, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-Award proceedings were marked on his behalf. 11.

Undisputedly, the lands in Sy.No.477 of Lingala Village, Sy.No.231, 240, 244, 243, 245 to 247, 232, 229, 231 and 230 in Kanaparthy village, Sy.Nos.174, 164 to 168, 162, 157, 158, 71, 103 to 105, 78 to 80 and Sy.No.29 belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired by the Government.

12.

P.W.1 is the claimant No.26 who deposed that an extent of 15 guntas in Sy.No.157 was acquired by fixing the land value at Rs.23,000/- per acre. In the said land, he used to grow commercial crops like cotton, chillies, groundnut and other pulses. It is black soil land and there are many other sales of lands effected in the village at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. Therefore, the subject land would fetch at Rs.60,000/- per acre.

13.

P.W.2--Claimant No.1 has deposed that his land in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.230 of Kanaparthy village was acquired and compensation of Rs.23,000/- per acre was paid to him. He further deposed that the land value at Rs.50,000/- per acre was existing in their village by the date of acquisition. There was a school near to his land. In addition, a welding shop was also situated nearby and the said land was situated near bus stand. He further deposed that one Venkataiah purchased the land in an extent of 375 square yards situated in Sy.No.244 under Ex. A.1 at the rate of Rs.12/- per square yard. Therefore the value of subject land could be fixed at Rs.60,000/- per acre , but not at Rs.23,000/- per acre as fixed by the LAO. 14.

It was established from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the value of the land is more than the value fixed by the LAO. It is the specific contention of the respondents/claimants that the value of the subject acquired land was at Rs.60,000/- per acre by the date of acquisition. In this regard, the respondents/claimants have filed Ex.A.-1 certified copy of registered sale deed under which an extent of 375 square yards was sold at the rate of Rs.12/- per square yard which comes to Rs.60,000/- per acre.

15.

P.W.4 is the purchaser of the land under Ex.A.1 sale deed. He categorically deposed that he purchased the land in Sy.No.244 situated near the subject acquired land. The land under Ex.A.1 is situated in Mounjanka parthy, Hamlet of Rayaparthy of Regonda Mandal. It was suggested to P.W.4 by the appellant/LAO that the land in Regonda is situated at a distance of 2 or 3 KMs away from the acquired land. However, P.W.4 denied that suggestion. However, if the evidence

of P.W.4 is taken into consideration, the value of the land would fetch at Rs.60,000/- per acre.

16.

In view of above, the learned Court below observed in the impugned order that the land covered under Ex.A.1 is a small bit of land. In fact, in the case on hand, the acquired land is in acres whereas the land sold under Ex.A.1 was only in square yards. 17.

It is well established principle of law that the land sold in yardage basis cannot be considered for the lands purchased or acquired under acerage basis. Accordingly, the learned Court below observed in the impugned order that the value found in Ex.A.1 sale deed can be taken into consideration, but with certain deductions. In fact it was clearly brought on record that the sale under Ex.A.1 was a house site and the price of the said land in Ex.A.1-sale deed was at Rs.60,000/- per acre. By making 1/3 deduction from total price, the value of the subject land can be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per acre. 18.

The learned Court below further noted that even if the value found in Ex.A.1 is taken into consideration, the prices of the acquired land is more than Rs.23,000/- as fixed by the LAO. To make the things more clear, the respondents/claimants have filed a copy of the order passed by another Court granting compensation in respect of similar type of land acquired for digging the canal. Ex.A.2 is the order passed in O.P.No.145 of 1995. The acquired land covered under Ex.X.1 order is situated in between K.M.55.550 to 55.924. The land in question is also in Regonda village. The present acquired land starts from K.M. 59.574 to 62.628. Accordingly, in the opinion of the learned Court below the subject acquired land is in continuation of the land acquired in

OP.No.145 of 1995 for which compensation was awarded and the said land is just away from the acquired land, i.e. at a distance of about 0.474 Km. Having regard to the same, the learned Reference Court fixed the market value of the subject acquired land at Rs.40,000/- . 19.

While arriving at the aforesaid rate, the learned Court below relied on the decision of the Apex Court in KANWAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA {(1009) 8 SCC 136, wherein it was held as under: " Prices received on the land in bonafide transactions on the date or immediately preceding the date of notification issued under Section 4 held relevant for determining the market value."

20.

It is not in dispute that Ex.A.1--sale deed is dated 4.5.1990, which took place prior to the date of notification issued for acquisition of subject acquired land. The prices mentioned therein can certainly be taken into consideration. As observed by the learned Court below in the impugned order, by applying necessary deduction, the market value of the subject acquired land can be fixed at Rs.40,000/-. 21.

Furthermore, there is an order passed in OP.No.145 of 1995 (Ex.X.1) wherein, as discussed supra, compensation was awarded at Rs.48,000/- per acre. However, in the case on hand, the learned Court below fixed the market value of the subject acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre.

22.

In view of the above discussion and legal position, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Reference Court.

23.

Finding no merit, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

24.

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the appeal shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------------- JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAITH -------------------------------- JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI Dated 3rd August, 2017.

msnrx