Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer, vs Ayyannagari Linga Reddy, on 14 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.396 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondents/claimants.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer (RWS), Karimnagar, for acquisition of lands for construction of sumps and watchman quarters, lands to an extent of 0-13 guntas in Sy.No.201 situated at Galipalli Village belonging to claimant No 1, an extent of 0-14 guntas in Sy.No.940 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014 situated at Venkatraopalli, H/o Repaka Revenue village, belonging to claimant No.2 and an extent of 0-16 guntas in Sy.No.389 situated at Muskanipet village, belonging to claimant No.3, all dry lands, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sircilla; that urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was invoked; that the draft notification under Section 4(1) and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in the Gazette on 08-08-2008 and 18-08-2008, respectively; that the possession of the lands was taken on 11-10-2002; that after due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land in Galipalli Village @ Rs.70,000/- per acre, @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for the acquired land in Venkatraopalli Village and @ Rs.70,000/- per acre for the acquired land in Muskanipet Village and accordingly, passed the Award, vide proceedings No.A1/1139/2005, dated 03-08-2009.
4. Not being satisfied with the Award, the respondents/ claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the 3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014 same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2010 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-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked.
6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands situated in the aforesaid Villages @ Rs.88/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the respondents/claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court has erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands without any basis or evidence on record; that the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record; that the Reference Court has failed to note that the acquired lands are agricultural lands and are not part of any 4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014 sanctioned layout and therefore, the Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired lands on yardage basis. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order.
8. It was the case of the respondents/claimants before the Reference Court that the lands under acquisition are very fertile and are abutting main roads with high potential value for house sites.
9. Perusal of the record discloses that in order to support their claim for enhancement of compensation, before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Claimant Nos.3 and 1, who got themselves examined as P.W-1 and 2, respectively, deposed reiterating the averments made in their claim petition. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. P.W-3, who is the vendee of land in Sy.No.318 of Ellanthakunta, deposed that under Ex.A-3, she purchased land admeasuring 485.33 square yards @ rate of Rs.190/- per square yard; that the land in Sy.No.389 of Muskanipet is situated abutting the main road of Siddipet-Ellanthakunta and 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014 has got high potentiality for house sites; and that the distance between Muskanipet and Ellanthakunta is about 2 kms.
10. P.W-4 stated that he purchased plot admeasuring 328.58 square yards in Sy.No.389 of Muskanipet through Ex.A-1 in the name of his wife-Suguna @ rate of Rs.80/- per square yard and that the land in Sy.No.389 is situated abutting the main road of Ellanthakunta-Siddipet.
11. Exs.A-2 and A-4 are also the registered sale deeds, dated 07.05.2007 and 26.02.2001, through which lands admeasuring 292 ½ square yards and 363 square yards in Sy.Nos.215 and 217 of Ellanthakunta were sold @ Rs.290/- and Rs.150/- per square yard, respectively. Though none was examined to prove Exs.A-2 and A-4, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs V.Narasaiah1, due credence can be given to the said documents.
12. Thus, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4 goes to show that all the acquired lands are situated 1 2001(1) LACC 380 6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014 in Ellanthakunta Mandal and are abutting the main road of Ellanthakunta-Siddipet.
13. R.W-1 admitted that all the acquired lands in Galipalli, Muskanipet and Venkatraopalli Villages are situated abutting Siddipet road and are similar in nature. He further admitted that as per Ex.B-1-Award, the sale transactions pertaining to Sy.No.389 of Muskanipet Village, ranges upto Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
14. Further, a perusal of Ex.B-1-Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer goes to show that different extents of land in Sy.Nos.389/ABCD and 389/A of Muskanipet Village, were sold on yardage basis in the years 2007 and 2008, whereunder the highest value was mentioned as Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
15. In this aspect, it is relevant to note the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Housing Board Vs. Panduranga V.Sawanth2 and Atma Singh (died) through LRs. And others Vs. State of Haryana 3, wherein it is held that in the absence of any other evidence, the Court can take into consideration the 2 2010(15) SCC 276 3 2008(2) SCC 568 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014 documents under which small pieces of land were purchased for determining the value of the acquired land.
16. Therefore, if Exs.A-1, A-3 and Ex.B-1 and the evidence of R.W-1 are read in harmony, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land in Muskanipet @ Rs.88/- per square yard, which warrants no interference by this Court.
17. As regards the acquired land in Galipalli Village, in the impugned Award, the Reference Court observed that an extent of Ac.0.13 guntas, out of the total extent of Acs.2.00, belonging to claimant No.1 was acquired, which caused hardship to him in carrying on agricultural operation in the remaining piece of land.
18. As regards the acquired land in Venkatraopalli, in Ex.B-1- Award though the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to certain sale deeds under which the land in Venkatraopalli was sold on yardage basis, he discarded to adopt the market value mentioned therein without assigning any reasons.
8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.396 of 2014
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, as the purpose of acquisition and the date of issuance of 4(1) notification of the Act in respect of the subject acquired lands are same and further, as admitted by R.W-1, all the acquired lands are situated abutting the main road of Siddipet-Ellanthakunta and the nature of lands being similar, this Court opines that there cannot be any rationality in fixing different market values for the subject acquired lands.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances and on appreciation of the evidence available on record and for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court has not committed any error in enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands. Therefore, this Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
22. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:14.08.2024 dr