THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
I.A.No.1 of 2022 in L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018
And
L.A.A.S.Nos. 589 of 2017 and 141 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridevi)
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since L.A.A.S.No.589 of 2017 filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer and L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018 filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very
same judgment, dated 28.02.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.734 of 2012
on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at
L.B.Nagar (for short "the reference Court").
2. Brief facts of the case are that upon the requisition made by
the Estate Officer, HUDA, Begumpet, for acquisition of the land of
the claimant to an extent of 3,016.4 square yards in Sy.No.558 along
with other lands situated at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, for
formation of outer ring road from Shamirpet to Amberpet, the
Government has initiated acquisition proceedings by publishing
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
2
GSD, J and MGP, J
Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018
short "the Act") on 14.12.2005 and 18.12.2006. After due enquiry,
the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award under Ex.B1 fixed
the market value of the acquired land at Rs.400/- per square yard.
Having received the compensation under protest, the claimant sought
for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the
market value. The reference Court duly analyzing the evidence
adduced by both the parties, has enhanced the market value from
Rs.400/- to Rs.3,000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said
enhancement, while the L.A.O. preferred L.A.A.S.No.589 of 2017,
seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimant filed
L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018.
3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, appellant in
L.A.A.S.No.589 of 2017, and the learned counsel appearing for the
claimant, appellant in L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018. Perused the material
available on record.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant filed
I.A.No.1 of 2022 with a prayer to receive certain documents as
additional evidence. The documents which were filed by the
claimant along with the I.A. are the Xerox copies of sale deeds of that
particular area. Though the said documents are sought to be
received as additional evidence by the claimant, the learned Standing
3
GSD, J and MGP, J
Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018
Counsel for HUDA has vehemently opposed the same contending that
they are not at all relevant for the purpose of determining the market
value of the acquired land.
5. The first document is the agreement of sale-cum-general
power of attorney (with possession), dated 07.08.2006 wherein the
land covered under the said document, situated at Ghatkesar village,
to an extent of 146 square yards was sold for a consideration of
Rs.4,38,000/- which works out to Rs.3,000/- per square yard. The
second document is the gift settlement deed dated 11.06.2007
wherein the land which is also situated at Ghatkesar, the market
value was fixed at Rs.6,40,000/- for total area of 112.5 square yards
which works out to Rs.5,700/- per square yard. The third document
is the registered sale deed dated 10.12.2000 for a open plot of 478
square yards and the sale consideration therein was fixed at
Rs.19,12,000/- which works out to Rs.4,000/- per square yard.
However, in the present case, the notification was published on
14.12.2005
and 18.12.2006. Hence, the two documents i.e., the gift settlement deed, dated 11.06.2007 which is subsequent to the present acquisition notification and the copy of the sale deed dated 10.12.2000 which is more than preceding three years to the acquisition notification, are not relevant for the purpose of 4 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018 determining the market value of the acquired land. There remains the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession) dated 07.08.2006 which pertains to four months prior to the acquisition notification and as the land covered therein was situated in the same vicinity, the said document is relevant for the purpose of determining the market value. Therefore, this Court is inclined to receive the said document as additional evidence and mark the same as Ex.A9 while rejecting the remaining two documents. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2022 stands ordered.
6. Coming to the market value of the acquired land, the learned Standing Counsel for HUDA has contended that the reference Court has awarded exaggerated amount towards compensation in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the claimant. It is contended that the L.A.O. duly taking into consideration the potentiality of the land in the vicinity, has awarded just and reasonable compensation for the acquired land and therefore, the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation from Rs.400/- to Rs.3,000/- per square yard which is almost nine times the value that was awarded by the L.A.O.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the reference Court has committed a manifest error 5 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018 in not properly appreciating the evidence brought on record, which resulted in fixing the lesser market value. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant has amply established that the market value of the acquired land is much more than what has been fixed by the reference Court. In as much as the acquired land is situated very near to the proposed O.R.R., the reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the future potentiality of the acquired land. Alternatively, the learned counsel, while referring to Ex.A9-agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession), has contended that since the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.3,000/- per square yard, if this Court is not inclined to enhance the market value, sought to maintain the market value as was fixed by the reference Court.
8. As seen from the record, the land of the claimant to an extent of 3016.4 square yards at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal was acquired for the purpose of outer ring road from Shamirpet to Amberpet. The L.A.O. has fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per square yard. Before the reference Court, to support the claim that the land would fetch Rs.6,000/- per square yard, the claimant has filed copies of sale deeds vide Exs.A2, A4 to A7. Ex.A4 is the sale deed, dated 19.02.2004 under which the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.750/- per square yard. So also under Ex.A5-sale deed dated 02.12.2004 the 6 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018 land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Under Ex.A6-sale deed dated 11.02.2004 the land was sold at Rs.1178/- per square yard. Under Ex.A7-sale deed dated 18.01.2005 the land was sold at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Thus, those sale deeds would reflect that even preceding two years to the present acquisition, the land in the vicinity was being sold at more than Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was not right in awarding the meager amount of Rs.400/- per square yard. As regards the enhancement of the market value by the reference Court at Rs.3,000/- per square yard, it is to be seen that under Ex.A9-the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A.(with possession), which pertains to four months prior to the present acquisition notification, the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.3,000/- per square yard. Such being the case, basing on the sale transaction covered by Ex.A9, this Court is of the view that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the reference Court at Rs.3,000/- per square yard is just and reasonable, which needs no interference.
9. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.734 of 2012, dated 28.02.2017. It is made clear that the claimant is entitled all 7 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018 other statutory benefits as per the amended Act including the interest on the additional market value and interest on solatium etc. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________ G. SRI DEVI, J _______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MARKED THROUGH THIS COURT Ex.A9: Agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession), dated 07.08.2006 ____________ G. SRI DEVI, J _______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 21.09.2022 gkv/tsr