Telangana High Court
Boini Muthaiah And 88 Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 8 November, 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.89 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Sri Kandi Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed in LAO.P.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands in total admeasuring Acs.27.36 guntas in different Survey numbers of Renikunta Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimanagar District, belonging to the appellants/claimants were acquired for the purpose of laying of pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Sujala Sravanthi Project at Renikunta Village; that Draft Notification 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019 under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 06.07.2010; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 07.07.2010; that amended Draft notification and draft declaration in respect of Sy.No.413 were approved on 19.11.2010; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.14/2011-12, dated 28.09.2013, fixing market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court and was numbered as LAOP.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, P.Ws-1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.1,57,300/- per acre for the acquired lands, apart from granting all other benefits under the Act to the appellants/claimants. Not satisfied with the enhancement made by the Reference Court in the impugned order, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the acquired lands are abutting Rajiv Rahadari, a State Highway, and are surrounded by number of residential buildings, colleges, schools, etc., and hence, the acquired lands are highly potential for house sites; that though there are several registered sale deeds of higher market value in respect of lands in the vicinity of the acquired lands, the same were not taken into consideration by the Reference Court and the Reference Court has erred in granting meager compensation by deducting 75% of the value reflected in Ex.P-1- sale deed; and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court has taken into account the overall scenario of the acquired lands, i.e., with regard to location, nearness to Mandal Headquarters, its potentiality, etc., and relying upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rightly fixed the market value of the acquired lands, which needs no interference by his Court.
9. The only issue that falls for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in deducting 75% of the amount reflected in Ex.P-1-sale deed and fixing the market value of the acquired lands; and if so, what is the just and reasonable market value of the acquired lands which the appellants/claimants are entitled to.
10. In the instant case, the claimants have got marked Ex.P-1- sale deed, dated 22.01.2008, whereunder an extent of 816.75 square yards of land in Sy.No.16/G was sold @ Rs.130/- per square yard and Ex.P-2-sale deed, dated 22.01.2008, whereunder an extent of 162 square yards of land in Sy.No.615 was sold @ 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019 Rs.125/- per square yard. There is no dispute that under the said sale deeds, the land was sold for house sites on yardage basis, whereas the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands.
11. The Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand vs. Union of India & Anr 1 and Kapil Mehra & Ors Vs. Union Of India & Anr 2 and while adopting Ex.A-1-sale deed for fixation of market value of the acquired lands, deducted 75% of the value reflected in the said sale deed and fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,57,300/- per acre.
12. In Lal Chand's case (1st cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated."1
(2009) 15 SCC 769 2 (2015) 2 SCC 262 6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019
13. In Kapil Mehra's case (2nd cited supra), which is also referred to and relied upon by the Reference Court in the impugned order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.
......While making one third deduction towards development cost, the learned single Judge did not keep in view the two essential components of deduction for development. Deduction for development consists of two components:- firstly, appropriate deduction to be made towards the area required to be utilized for roads, drains and common facilities like parks etc.; secondly, further deduction to be made towards the cost of development, that is cost of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, erection of electrical poles and water lines etc. For deduction of development towards land and development charges, the nature of development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the Building Rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water supply etc. and 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019 other relevant circumstances involved are required to be considered."
14. In the aforesaid case, the acquisition of the land was for development of Vasant Kunj under the planned development scheme of Delhi. In the instant case, the acquired lands are for laying of pipeline under an irrigation project namely Moulana Abdul Kalam Sujala Sravanthi Project, therefore, the facts of the case, the purpose of acquisition, etc., in the said case are entirely different to that of the present case and therefore, the rate of deductions mentioned in the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the case on hand. The Reference Court has committed error in applying the deductions mentioned in the aforesaid judgment to the present case.
15. It is also relevant to note that in Kapil Mehra's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the percentages mentioned in the said judgment are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.
8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019
16. In the instant case, the lands are acquired for an irrigation project, therefore, the question of deduction towards development charges does not arise. However, under Ex.P-1-sale deed which is taken as an exemplar sale deed, an extent of 816.75 square yards was sold @ Rs.130/- per square yard, which works out to Rs.5,08,201/- per acre. The extent covered under Ex.P-1-sale deed is very small when compared to acquisition of large chunk of Acs.27.36 guntas of land. Moreover, the land sold under Ex.P-1- sale deed is for house site, which means that it is a developed area. Hence, while taking Ex.P-1-sale deed as a representative sale deed for fixing the market value of the acquired lands, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the value reflected therein, which works out to Rs.3,38,801/- per acre.
17. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the impugned order passed by the Reference Court and the market value of the subject acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.3,38,801/- per acre. It is needless to say that the appellants/claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits like solatium, additional market value, etc., under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.89 of 2019
18. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:08.10.2024 dr