Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs Ponaganti Muthyam Rao And 93 Ots 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.301 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and Sri P.Devender, 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 Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Huzurabad, challenging the order and decree dated 08.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.50 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The brief facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Jammikunta, the lands belonging to the respondents/claimants to a total extent of Acs.34.11 guntas situated in the limits of Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages, H/o Veenavanka Mandal, were acquired for excavation of 12L-R IL to 12 to DBM-15 in the limits of Narsingapur and Kanaparthi of 2 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District; that the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazettee on 07.05.1985; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed Award No.15/87-88, dated 11.08.1987, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.4,000/- per acre.
4. The respondents/claimants received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.50 of 1997 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2-Award proceedings and Award, respectively, were marked.
6. The Reference Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, by the impugned order enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.20,000/- per acre from Rs.4,000/- per acre, 3 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 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 appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court erred in relying upon Exs.A-6 and A-7, though the lands covered thereunder are no way similar to the subject acquired lands; and thus, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands exorbitantly and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contended that the Reference Court has duly followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon Exs.A-6 and A-7 for determination of market value of the acquired lands and as such, he prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
10. Based on the contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the 4 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands based on Exs.A-6 and A-7.
11. To determine the market value of the acquired lands, this Court has to look into and analyze as to whether the lands covered under Exs.A-1 to A-8 are similar in nature and are situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands so as to adopt the sale price mentioned therein.
12. A perusal of Exs.A-1 and A-2-certified copies of order and decree in OP.No.74 of 1996, on the file of the Reference Court, respectively, goes to show that the lands covered thereunder are situated at Bethigal Village and the Reference Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands therein to Rs.35,000/- per acre. Further, Exs.A-3 and A-4 are the certified copies of order and decree in O.P.No.15 of 1997 on the file of the Reference Court, respectively, pertaining to the lands acquired in Pothireddipet Village. Under Exs.A-3 and A-4, the Reference Court has enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands therein to Rs.50,000/- per acre.
5 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013
13. Similarly, Ex.A-5 is a registered sale deed with regard to land situated in Bethigal Village.
14. Admittedly, Bethigal and Pothireddipet Villages are in Veenavanka Mandal, so also the subject acquired lands situated in Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages are in Veenavanka Mandal. The respondents-claimants except contending that Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages are adjacent to Bethigal Village, did not choose to produce the topography of Veenavanka Mandal to prove the same. Further, it is not the case of the respondents-claimants that there are no sale transactions that took place in Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages and that the lands covered under Exs.A-1 to A-5 are adjacent to the subject acquired lands.
15. To decide as to whether the said documents-Exs.A-1 to A-5 can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired lands, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Deputy Collector Vs. E.Jaggareddy and others 1 , wherein it is held as follows:- 1
1992(2) ALT 578 (D.B) 6 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 "The sale transactions mentioned in the Award and if the documents are not marked, the Court is not entitled to take note of such document and it is only the document mentioned in the Award, that are marked, the Court is competent to look into those documents."
16. In the instant case, it is to be noted that though in Ex.B-2- Award, there was mention of the sale transactions pertaining to the subject villages, the respondents-claimants did not chose to produce any of the sale transactions with regard to the subject villages and on the other hand, they sought to rely upon Exs.A-1 to A-5 which pertains to different villages. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Exs.A-1 to A-5 cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of the subject acquired lands.
17. Coming to Exs.A-6 to A-8, it is evident that in Exs.A-7 and A-8-certified copies of order and decree in O.P.No.4 of 1996, dated 10.09.1996, the Reference Court by relying upon Ex.A-6, fixed the market value of the acquired lands therein @ Rs.16,000/- per acre. Admittedly, the land covered under Ex.A-6 is situated at Valbapur Village, whereas the acquired lands are situated at Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages. But, as seen from Ex.B-2- 7 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 Award, it appears that while referring to the sale deeds for adopting the price mentioned therein as market value of the subject acquired lands, the sale deeds relating to Valbapur Village were also mentioned therein, which implies that the subject acquired lands are in the vicinity of Valbapur Village.
18. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals admitted that against the orders covered under Exs.A-1, A-3 and A-7 i.e., the orders passed in O.P.Nos.74 of 1996, 15 of 1997 and 4 of 1996, respectively, no appeals were preferred before the High Court.
19. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in E.Jaggareddy's case (cited supra), Ex.A-7- order passed in O.P.No.4 of 1996 which pertains to fixation of the market value of the lands acquired in Valbapur Village, basing on Ex.A-6, and which order remained unchallenged before the High Court, can be relied upon for fixation of market value of the acquired lands.
20. Further, the Reference Court observed that though the Land Acquisition Officer referred to sale transactions of which the highest sale price was Rs.12,000/- per acre, without assigning any 8 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 reasons, discarded the said transaction and fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.4,000/- per acre basing on some least/undervalued sale transactions, which is grossly illegal.
21. As regards the categorization of the acquired lands into two categories and awarding different compensation for each category, it is to be seen that though it was the case of the respondents-claimants that the acquired lands are fertile and they used to raise commercial crops and further, as the acquired lands are adjacent to village, they have potentiality for house sites, in the absence of any proof in the form of adangal, etc., to show the nature of the acquired lands, the said contention of the respondents-claimants deserves no merit. However, in the opinion of this Court, in the interest of justice and to have uniformity, the Reference Court had rightly treated the two categories as was divided by the Land Acquisition Officer into one category and accordingly, granted the same compensation for all the acquired lands.
22. Regarding the escalation given by Reference Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as Ex.A-6 pertains to sale 9 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.301 of 2013 deed of the year 1982, whereas, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the instant case was published in the year 1986, reasonable escalation has to be given while fixing the market value of the acquired lands basing on Ex.A-6. Therefore, taking into consideration the said fact and also the possibility of increase in the price of land by passage of time, the Reference Court has rightly escalated the value @ Rs.1,000/- per annum and fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.20,000/- per acre, which in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference.
23. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:05.09.2024 dr