Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Offficer vs Mereddy Laxma Reddy on 10 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.297 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Tahsildar, Nalgonda District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.06.2015 passed in O.P.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The brief facts of the case are that lands admeasuring Acs.4.25 guntas, i.e., an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.124 and an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.125, situated in the limits of Anumula Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, belonging to the respondent-claimant were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of Anumula Village; that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. 2 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015 Gazette on 20.05.1983; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed an Award, dated 01.09.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.3,900/- per acre.
4. The claimant received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was accordingly referred to the Reference Court and numbered as O.P.No.40 of 2010.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. On appreciation of the material available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.60,000/- per acre from Rs.3,900/- per acre, apart from granting other benefits under the Act to the respondent/ claimant.
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 contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of 3 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015 the fact that Ex.A-2-Judgment, dated 27.11.2006, passed by this Court in A.S.No.1065 of 2003, relates to the lands acquired in Halia, whereas, the subject acquired lands are situated in Anumula Village and as such, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation based on Ex.A-2 and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant contended that the Reference Court on perusing Ex.A-2 came to a conclusion that the subject acquired lands and the lands covered under Ex.A-2 are nearer to each other and the purpose of acquisition is also similar in both the cases and therefore, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.A-2 and fixed fair and reasonable compensation, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
10. At the outset, it is evident that Exs.A-4 to A-8 are all the sale deeds pertaining to Nidamanoor Village and they were marked as exhibits in O.P.No.46 of 1993 on the file of the Reference Court. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 20.05.1983. The respondent-claimant placed reliance on the sale deeds under Exs.A-4 to A-8 which relate to post-
4 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015 notification, i.e., Exs.A-4 and A-6 are executed in the month of June, 1983 and Exs.A-5, 7 and 8 are executed in the month of July, 1983. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into the said aspect as the same were already considered by the Reference Court, vide Ex.A-1 and further, on appeal, considered by the High Court, vide Ex.A-2.
11. Ex.A-3-common judgment rendered by this Court in A.S.Nos.2687 and 3716 of 2000, dated 12.09.2013, is with regard to fixation of market value of the acquired lands therein situated at Anumula Village pursuant to draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 10.02.1992, whereas in the instant case, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 20.05.1983. Therefore, in view of long time gap of more than eight years, Ex.A-3 cannot be considered for assessing the market value of the subject acquired lands.
12. Now, the only point that falls for consideration is as to whether Ex.A-2-judgment of the High Court rendered in AS.No.1065 of 2003, dated 27.11.2006, is squarely applicable to the instant case, as contended by the respondent-claimant.
5 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015
13. The case of the respondent-claimant is that the acquired lands are originally agricultural lands and localized under Nagarjuna Sager Project Ayacut; that the acquired lands are located in Anumula Mandal Headquarters on the road side which is leading from Halia to Devarakonda and as such, they have high potentiality. Even R.W-1 admitted in his evidence that the acquired lands are situated in Anumula Headquarters coming under Nagarjuna Sagar Project ayacut. Thus, the respondent-claimant succeeded in establishing the location of the acquired lands on the road side, which obviously have commercial importance and fetches higher market value.
14. R.W-1 in his evidence admitted that the land covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the subject acquired lands were acquired for the same purpose i.e., for providing house sites to the weaker sections.
15. In the impugned order, the Reference Court, on perusal of Ex.A-2, observed that the acquired lands covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the subject acquired lands are nearer to each other and were acquired for similar purpose. In other words, the respondent- claimant was able to establish that the acquired lands are situated 6 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015 within the vicinity of the lands covered under Ex.A-2 and the purpose of acquisition is also the same.
16. Further, in the judgment passed in AS.No.1065 of 2003 (Ex.A-2), it is recorded that the learned Government Pleader admitted that the subject lands therein are situated in Halia Village, which is a Hamlet of Anumula Mandal and this Court, after considering the evidence and other material available on record, has confirmed the impugned order therein passed by the Reference Court fixing the compensation for the subject acquired lands therein @ Rs.60,000/- per acre. It is to be noted that Halia, a remote village, is said to be a Hamlet of Anumula Mandal and the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the said case and in the instant case are of the same year, i.e., 1983 and the purpose of acquisition is similar in both the cases, i.e., for providing house sites to the weaker sections. Further, the subject lands are situated at Anumula Mandal Headquarters, therefore, they will definitely fetcher higher value than the lands situated at Halia Village, and in any event, not lesser. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Reference Court in the impugned order, basing on Ex.A-2, is 7 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015 justifiable and cannot be said to be on higher side. Further, it is represented that Ex.A-2 attained finality as the same remained unchallenged.
17. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the market value of the acquired lands fixed by this Court under Ex.A-2 can be safely adopted for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands.
18. Further, it is appropriate to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1 and Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another2, held that when the nature/quality and purpose of acquisition of the subject acquired lands are similar and identical to the lands acquired in the adjacent village, it would not be justifiable or rather it is unfair to discriminate in granting distinct compensation for the acquired lands, can be squarely applied to the instant case.
19. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that to maintain uniformity 1 2017(4)SCC 717 2 2010(5)SCC 747 8 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.297 of 2015 in fixation of the market value and to avoid discrimination, the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation for the subject acquired lands as that of the compensation granted for similar and identical lands covered under Ex.A-2 and therefore, the Reference Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
20. For the reasons assigned in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court holds that this Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
22. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated: 10.09.2024 dr