Telangana High Court
The Land Aquisition Officer vs Basukula Yadagiri on 9 August, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LAAS.No.160 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant No.1.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Hanamkonda, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.10.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.361 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the lands admeasuring 28,646.75 square yards situated in Sy.Nos.65, 66, 70 to 76 and 78 to 82 of Chagal Village, Ghanpur (Station) Mandal, Warangal District, were acquired for excavation of R.F. Main Canal of R.S. Ghanpur Reservoir under JCR-GLIP Project, Phase- II, within the limits of the said village; that the lands of the 2 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018 respondents/claimants, i.e., an extent of 7,502 square yards in Sy.Nos.74 and 78 and an extent of 4,114 square yards in Sy.Nos.65, 70 and 71 belonging to respondent Nos.5 and 1, respectively, were acquired for the said purpose; that draft notification under Section 4(1) and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette on 12.02.2008 and 13.02.2008, respectively; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed Award No.45/2010-11, dated 15.12.2010, granting compensation @ Rs.60/- per square yard for Category-I lands and @ Rs.90,000/- per acre for Category-II lands.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted under the said Award, the respondents/ claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.361 of 2011 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.
3 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018
6. The Reference Court by the impugned order enhanced the market value @ Rs.200/- per square yard for Category-I lands and @ Rs.60/- per square yard for Category-II lands, apart from granting other benefits under the Act to the respondents/claimants.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Reference Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the Reference Court erred in relying upon Ex.A-2, which relates to small extent of land i.e., 240 square yards and is a house plot, as comparable sale, whereas the acquired lands are agricultural lands; that the Reference Court erred in granting compensation on yardage basis instead of acreage basis; that the Reference Court also erred in not deducting 40% of the value assessed towards developmental charges; and thus, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands by three times more than the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the acquired lands are situated abutting the National 4 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018 Highway No.202 and are suitable for house plots and have great potentiality and therefore, the Reference Court rightly fixed the compensation for the acquired lands on yardage basis. He further contended that relying on the sale deeds under Exs.A-2 to A-6, which relate to the transactions during the years 2007-2008, the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. The respondents/claimants have marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. Ex.A-1- sale deed relates to the transaction of the year 2004, i.e., about six years prior to the issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and Exs.A-2 and A-7 are dated 28.02.2008 and 18.04.2008 i.e., after the date of issuance of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and therefore, Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-7 cannot be taken into consideration for determination of market value of the acquired lands.
11. In the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically observed that the subject acquired lands situated in Sy.Nos.65, 70, 5 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018 71 and 74 have same fertility and potentiality as that of the land in Sy.Nos.23 and 24 and relying upon the sale transaction of the year 2005, the Land Acquisition Officer initially assessed the market value of Category-I of the acquired lands @ Rs.100/- per square yard, however, deducted 40% of the said value by terming it as 'depreciation value' and fixed the market value thereof @ Rs.60/- per square yard. The question of depreciation arises only in cases of buildings, structures, etc. In the instant case, the subject matter is open land, which is acquired for excavation of R.F. Main Canal of R.S. Ghanpur Reservoir, therefore, the question of depreciation value does not arise. This opinion of this Court is fortified by the decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. RDO1, wherein it is held as under:-
"If the land is acquired for purpose of house sites 1/3rd has to be deducted for roads and amenities. But this land is acquired for purpose of construction of water works reservoir and hence no deduction can be made."
12. Therefore, in the light of the above decision, this Court holds that the Land Acquisition Officer is not justified in deducting 40% 1 1992 SCC OnLine AP 85 6 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018 of the assessed market value by terming the same as 'depreciation value'. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Reference Court erred in not deducting 40% towards developmental charges is, therefore, unsustainable and merits no consideration.
13. Ex.A-3 is the sale deed, dated 14.12.2007, whereunder land to an extent of 200 square yards in Sy.No.23 was sold @ Rs.450/- per square yard. Admittedly, even as per the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the acquired lands have same the fertility and potentiality as that of the land in Sy.No.23, which is fit for construction of houses. It is also the case of the respondents/claimants that the acquired lands are abutting National Highway No.202, which remained undisputed by the appellant.
14. As regards Ex.A-4, it is sale deed dated 25.05.2007, whereunder an extent of 200 square yards of land in Sy.No.22A/E was sold @ Rs.400/- per square yard and Ex.A-6 is sale deed dated 07.12.2007 whereunder an extent of 369.72 square yards of land in Sy.No.22A/E was sold @ Rs.350/- per square yard.
7 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018
15. The Land Acquisition Officer also relied upon the transaction pertaining to sale of land in Sy.No.22/A/AE, however, the said sale deed relates to the year 2006.
16. Therefore, Exs.A-3 to A-5, which relate to the year 2007 in respect of the land in Sy.No.22/A/E can be taken into consideration for assessment of market value of the acquired lands, as rightly done so by the Reference Court.
17. Further, it is relevant to note that in the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has observed that the lands in Category-II are contiguous to the lands in Category-I and are useful for commercial purpose. In such an event, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Land Acquisition Officer has grossly erred in fixing the market value of Category-II lands on acreage basis, which was rightly interfered with by the Reference Court, on reference.
18. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands, therefore, in the opinion of this Court no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned judgment.
8 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.160 of 2018
19. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
21. As a sequel, interim order, dated 26.07.2018, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated: 09.08.2024
dr