Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Md. Nidyaduddin And 10 Others on 22 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.68 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel 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 aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.01.2018 passed in LAO.P.No.25 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the subject lands totally admeasuring Acs.39.20 guntas situated in different survey numbers in the limits of Pedda Cheruvu, Peddathimmapur Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Asifabad District, belonging to the respondents/claimants, were acquired for the purpose of formation of Peddacheruvu; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 Act was published on 10.11.2009; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 11.11.2009; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, vide proceedings No.B/1960/1985, dated 08.04.2011, fixing market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.42,500/- per acre.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the 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.25 of 2011 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, PW-1 was examined and Ex.A-1-Award was marked. Exc.C-1-Advocate Commissioner's report was also marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, enhanced the compensation from Rs.42,500/- per acre to Rs.1,75,000/- per acre 3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 for the acquired lands, apart from granting all other statutory benefits under the Act to the appellants/claimants. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the time lag between the date of taking possession of subject land and awarding of compensation and granted fair and reasonable compensation; that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that the documents marked on behalf of the claimants are pertaining to smaller extents of land and that the reasoning given by the Reference Court in adopting the said sale deeds is not cogent or tangible; and that therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has appreciated the entire material placed before it and has rightly enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands as was fixed by the Land Acquisition 4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 Officer and therefore, this Appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
9. The instant case has a chequered history. The subject lands of the claimants were taken over by the requisitioning department i.e., Irrigation Department on 10.08.1971, however, as compensation was not paid, the owners of the acquired lands filed W.P.No.4769 of 1997 before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.06.1997. Seeking to review the said order, the Government filed Review Petition in W.P.No.4769 of 1997 and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the matter was unsuccessfully carried in Writ Appeal before Division Bench of this Court and the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stood dismissed, vide orders dated 05.11.2008. Thereafter, the present notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 10.11.2009. Though 4(1) notification was issued, neither an Award was passed nor compensation was paid. Hence, the claimants filed Contempt Case No.524 of 2011. Subsequently, the Land 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 Acquisition Officer passed Award dated 08.04.2011 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.42,500/- per acre.
10. In order to assess and fix the market value of the subject acquired land, this Court has thoroughly perused the entire evidence available on record.
11. In order to substantiate their claim for fixation of higher market value, the claimants have got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4 before the Reference Court. Ex.B-1 is the registered sale deed, dated 03.08.2009, executed in respect of an extent of Ac.0.33 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/E of Peddathimmapur Village for consideration of Rs.83,000/- per acre, which works out to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B-2 is the registered sale deed, dated 30.04.2008, executed in respect of two properties mentioned therein i.e., Schedule-A to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 of Peddathimmapur Village for consideration of Rs.30,000/- per acre, which works out to Rs.15,000/- per acre and Schedule-B to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.22 of Peddathimmapur Village for consideration of Rs.4,000/-, which works out to Rs.15,000/- per acre.
6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019
12. Thus, out of the two sale deeds-Ex.B-1 and B-2, Ex.B-1-sale deeds reflects the highest market value of land, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. But, in the impugned order, the Reference Court committed error in noting the market value of the land reflected in Ex.B-2-sale deed as Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Even the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.A-1-Award has erroneously mentioned that for the land covered under Ex.B-2-sale deed bearing document No.1275 of 2008, the market value is Rs.1,36,000/- per acre. In fact, both the Reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer have committed serious error in examining the document under Ex.B-2 and have wrongly mentioned the market value reflected therein, without considering the fact that there are two schedules in Ex.B-2.
13. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.B-1-Award, while mentioning the sale statistics for a period of three years prior to 4(1) notification i.e., for the years 2007 to 2009, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to 12 sale transactions pertaining to the years 2007 and 2008, but the sale transactions for the year 2009 was mentioned as NIL. This observation of the Land 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 Acquisition Officer in Ex.A-1-Award is incorrect in the light of Ex.B-1-sale deed, dated 03.08.2009 which pertains to Peddathimmapur Village. This shows the selective approach on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer while referring to the sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period. Therefore, this Court holds that the Land Acquisition Officer has not fixed the market value of the subject acquired land basing on the sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period.
14. Further, it is relevant to note that the vendor of Ex.B-1-sale deed was examined as R.W-2 and he deposed that though the market value of the land under Ex.B-1 is shown as Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, he has registered the land in favour of Chuchukayala Durgaiah (vendee) on receiving total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and delivered possession of the said land. He further deposed that in order to avoid stamp duty under Registration Act, the value of the property under Ex.B-1 is shown as Rs.83,000/-. But, this evidence of R.W-2 which is contrary to the document cannot be accepted and considered. Therefore, the market value reflected in 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 Ex.B-1-sale deed has to be necessarily taken as true and prevailing market value at the relevant period.
15. Though the genuineness of Ex.B-1 and B-2 is proved, as Ex.B-1-sale deed reflects the highest market value, the same has to be taken as exemplar sale deed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab 1. Accordingly, the market value of the subject acquired land is fixed @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
16. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the Reference Court erred in granting interest on the market value from the year 1971 onwards and therefore, he sought intervention of this Court regarding that aspect also.
17. A perusal of record goes to show that during the pendency of the proceedings, in W.A.No.1506 of 1997, Advocate- Commissioner was appointed to enquire about the actual use of the subject acquired land and to submit a report. In pursuance thereof, the Advocate-Commissioner submitted his report-Ex.C-1, dated 18.01.1998, wherein he has mentioned that on recording the 1 (2012) 5 SCC 432 9 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 statements of neighbouring land owners, on inspection of the subject land, etc., he came to conclusion that the subject acquired lands were submerged and that the owners of the said lands are not cultivating the said lands for more than 20-25 years. In the light of the said report, the High Court dismissed W.A.No.1506 of 1997 directing the Government to pay compensation to the claimants from the year 1971. The matter was unsuccessfully challenged by the Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the aspect of granting interest on the market value is no longer resintegra. Hence, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Reference Court committed error in granting interest on the enhanced market value from the year 1971 is untenable.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that this Appeal is liable to be allowed.
19. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Reference Court is set aside, modifying the market value of the subject acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as against Rs.1,75,000/- per acre fixed by the Reference Court. It is 10 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.68 of 2019 needless to say that the claimants are entitled to all the benefits under the Act i.e., interest, solatium and additional market value on the modified market value. Further, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh v. LAO 2 and Tahera Khotoon v. LAO 3, the claimants are entitled to additional interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum from the date of their dispossession from the acquired lands in the year 1971 till the date of issuance of 4(1) notification on 10.11.2009.
20. As a sequel, interim order dated 11.03.2020 passed in LAASMP.No.68 of 2019 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:22.11.2024 dr 2 (2016) 12 SCC 412 3 (2014) 13 SCC 613