THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
I.A.No.2 of 2022 in L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018
And
L.A.A.S.Nos. 571 of 2017 and 140 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.571 of 2017 filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer and L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018 filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very
same judgment, dated 28.02.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.733 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 claimants to an extent of 11,986 square yards in Sy.No.167 along
with other lands situated at Keesara Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, 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
2
GSD, J and MGP, J
Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018
Act, 1894 (for 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.375/- 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.375/- to Rs.3,000/- per square yard.
Aggrieved by the said enhancement, while the L.A.O. preferred
L.A.A.S.No.571 of 2017, seeking further enhancement of
compensation, the claimants filed L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018.
3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, appellant in
L.A.A.S.No.571 of 2017, and the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants, appellant in L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018. Perused the material
available on record.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant filed I.A.No.2
of 2022 with a prayer to receive certain documents as additional
evidence. The documents which were filed by the claimants 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 claimants, the learned Standing Counsel
3
GSD, J and MGP, J
Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018
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_571_2017 and 140_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.A6 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 claimants. 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.375/- 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 claimants has contended that the reference Court has committed a manifest error 5 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_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 claimants 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.A6-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 claimants to an extent of 11986 square yards situated at Keesara Dayara Village was acquired for the purpose of outer ring road from Shamirpet to Amberpet. The L.A.O. has fixed the market value at Rs.375/- per square yard. Before the reference Court, to support the claim that the land would fetch Rs.6,000/- per square yard, the claimants have filed Ex.A1- market value certificate, Ex.A2-pattadar pass book, Ex.A3-title deed of the Rajendra Kumar Masrani, Ex.A4-proceedings and Ex.A5 compensation package for the O.R.R. project. The record reveals 6 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018 that P.W.1 did not file any document to show that in the year 2006 the lands surrounding his property were already developed. P.W.1 admitted that he did not file any document to show that in the year 2006, the market value of the property was prevailing at Rs.10,45,000/- per acre. As per Ex.A5-consent award, an amount of Rs.1,110/- was fixed per square yard. In Ex.B1-award itself, the L.A.O. has categorically observed that sale item No.164 of 2004, the sale consideration was Rs.1,000/- per square yard for the land in Sy.Nos.563 to 566 and 559. Further, in respect of land in Sy.No.577, the sale consideration was shown as Rs.1,000/- per square yard at sale item No.10. So also item No.77 the sale consideration was shown as Rs.1178/- per square yard. Thus, those sale items would reflect that even preceding two years to the present acquisition, the land in the vicinity was being sold for more than Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was not right in awarding the meager amount of Rs.375/- 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.A6-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.A6, this Court is of 7 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018 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.733 of 2012, dated 28.02.2017. It is made clear that the claimants are entitled all other statutory benefits as per the amended Act including the interest on enhanced 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.A6: 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 8 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018