Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs Jupalli Damodar Rao, on 5 September, 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.592 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri A.Krupadhar 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, Ramagundam, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed in O.P.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands to an extent of Acs.13.20 ½ guntas situated in the limits of Garrepalli Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired for laying of Pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 07.05.2010; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, dated 20.05.2011, granting compensation @ Rs.86,000/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.96,000/- per acre for wet lands, along with solatium and other statutory benefits.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, treated both the categories of wet and dry lands as one category and enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed.
7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court erred 3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 in granting uniform compensation for both wet and dry acquired lands; that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the sale deeds pertaining to three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification for fixing the market value of the acquired lands and erred in placing reliance on Ex.A-1 which pertains to land situated far away from the acquired lands while determining the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court erred in observing that the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and choose method while determining the market value of the acquired land and ultimately, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate to the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into consideration the sale transaction under Ex.A-1, rightly enhanced 4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
9. Before the Reference Court, the respondents-claimants have marked Ex.A-1-sale deed, whereunder the land covered therein was sold @ Rs.8,23,000/- per acre. P.W.1-one of the claimants and P.W-2-attestor of Ex.A-1 were examined, who reiterated the contents of Ex.A-1. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing contrary was elicited and their evidence stood unrebutted. P.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice stated that the acquired lands are abutting Rajiv State Highway. Even R.W-1 admitted that the acquired lands are abutting Rajiv State Highway leading from Ramagundam to Hyderabad. Further, Ex.A-3-photographs of the acquired land show the existence of a school adjacent to the acquired lands. As such, the location of the subject acquired lands and their potentiality to be used for house sites, though they are agricultural lands at the time of acquisition, are well established by the respondents-claimants. Though the respondents-claimants contended that by the time of acquisition, the subject acquired lands were converted into non-agricultural purposes, no proof is 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 adduced in that regard. Therefore, the said contention of the respondents-claimants merits no consideration.
10. From the above, it is evident that the respondents-claimants have established that the acquired lands are having high potentiality for house sites as they are abutting Rajiv State Highway and as such, they fetch higher market value. So also, it is borne from the record that the acquired lands are Bagaith lands, red chelka soil rich in fertility and utility and they are cultivated well with water through electric motor pump sets and water from SRSP canal. Further, it was also stated that the acquired lands are also double crop dry and wet lands.
11. A reading of the impugned order shows that the Reference Court has scrupulously and minutely gone through the sale deeds referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B-1-Award and after analyzing the same, found that the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected almost all the sale transactions of Garrepalli town on the ground that they do not represent the true and real market value for fixation of compensation for the acquired lands and further, the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and choose method 6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 while adopting the sale transactions. The Reference Court further observed that Ex.B-1-Award itself shows that many lands around/near the acquired lands, i.e., within a distance of less than ½ km were sold for more than Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, however, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the same on unreasonable and improper grounds.
12. This Court, on meticulously scrutiny of Ex.B-1-Award, finds that when sale transactions pertaining to the survey numbers, i.e., Sy.Nos.61 and 67 in which the subject acquired lands were situated, are available and the same reflect the market value of the said lands as Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer has ignored and discarded the same on unreasonable grounds. Therefore, this Court concur with the findings of the Reference Court in the impugned order that the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and choose method while adopting the sale transactions and adopted the undervalued sale deeds when, admittedly, the sale transactions of higher market value were available. Thus, this Court perceives the illegality and 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 irregularity in Ex.B-1-Award, which was rightly found fault with by the Reference Court in the impugned order.
13. Now, for determining the just compensation for the acquired lands, it is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Pohu and another 1 and State of Madras Vs. P.Seethamma and another 2, wherein it is held that while determining the compensation for the acquired lands on the basis of sale deeds of similar lands, the sale deeds fetching highest value prevailing in the market at the relevant time should be preferred.
14. In the instant case, the respondents-claimants have succeeded in proving that Ex.A-1-sale deed represents the highest value prevailing in the market at the time of acquisition of the subject lands by issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the market value of the acquired lands has to be fixed on the basis of Ex.A-1, whereunder the land was sold @ Rs.8,23,000/- per acre. Though the Reference Court considered 1 (1984) 86 Petitioner & H LR540 2 AIR 1972 Madras 170 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 Ex.A-1 as a representative sale for fixing the compensation for the acquired lands, without assigning any reason, has fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.6,00,000/- per acre.
15. Nonetheless, since the present Appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer against the impugned order of the Reference Court and no Cross-Objections are filed by the respondents-claimants in this Appeal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as regards the aforesaid aspect.
16. With regard to the compensation granted towards wells and trees situated in the acquired lands, the respondents-claimants examined P.W-3 who prepared the estimates of the valuation of the wells and trees existing therein. P.W-3 is a retired Municipal Engineer and therefore, his evidence and estimates cannot be brushed aside.
17. Here, it is apt to mention that in the instant case, there was no capitalization of the value of land and structures on it and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRs and others Vs. 9 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.592 of 2013 State of U.P. 3, wherein it is held that when there is no capitalization of the value of land and structure by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award, the claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land, tube wells and structures, and also on the basis of Ex.A-2-estimates, this Court finds justification in the impugned order passed by the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation towards the wells and trees present in the acquired lands by 1 ½ times over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the said aspect needs no interference by this Court.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
19. As a sequel, interim order dated 04.10.2013 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:05.09.2024 dr 3 (2003) 10 SCC 525