Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Special Tahsildar L.A., ... vs Y.Prameela on 29 June, 2022

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                                    AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

                        L.A.A.S.No.1918 of 2005


  JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)



        The challenge in this appeal filed by the Special Tahsildar (LA)

  U/s 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "LA Act") is to the

  order dated 30.04.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.36 of 1997 passed by learned

  Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in a reference Under Section 18

  of the LA Act.

  2.    The brief facts of the case are thus:

        (a) For the purpose of formation of National Highway Bypass

  Road, on the request of Executive Engineer, (R&B), National

  Highway Investigation Division, Nellore, lands were acquired in

  Nellore Bit-II Village of Nellore Mandal.       After following due

  process, draft declaration under Section-6 of the LA Act          was

  approved by the Government vide Memo dated 28.04.1992 and

  published in the Special Supplement to A.P. Gazette Part-I on

  24.08.1992 apart from publishing the same in two leading Telugu

  Daily newspapers.     Pursuant thereof enquiry was conducted and

  award bearing No.9/1993-94 dated 28.02.1994 was passed by the

  Special Tahsildar, Nellore.
                                     2



      (b) The present case is concerned, Ac.0.09½ cents of land

situated in Sy.No.389/4A of Nawabpet, Nellore-II belonging to the

claimant was acquired for the aforesaid purpose of laying bypass road.

The Land Acquisition Officer (for short "LAO") after considering the

material, fixed the value of the land @ Rs.85,000/- per acre and fixed

the compensation accordingly.

      (c) Aggrieved by the above order, the claimant sought reference

under Section 18 of the LA Act which was referred to the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.36 of 1997.

During enquiry the claimant examined herself as PW-1 and examined

another witness as PW-2 and produced documents in support of the

claim which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The Special Tahsildar

(LA) was examined as RW-1.


      (d) The claim of the claimant before the reference Court is that

the acquired land is a valuable land which is surrounded by business

area wherein many rice mills, oil mills and dall-mills are located; she

purchased an extent of 74 Ankanams and 64 Square Feet of vacant

site in Sy.No.389/4A, under a registered sale deed Ex.A-1 on

16.03.1985 and after the demise of her husband she succeeded the

subject property; the said plot is situated abutting to Nellore-Kodur

road which runs from East to West direction; she spent Rs.50,000/- to

rise the level of the land and constructed a wall around the plot and

made it fit for raising pacca building and she installed gate to the plot.

After her purchase the neighbouring lands were purchased @
                                    3



Rs.2,000/- per Ankanam. Her main grievance is that while under

Ex.A2 sale deed the neighbouring land was sold under sale deed dated

23.08.1988 @ Rs.21,000/- for 10 Ankanams i.e., @ Rs.2,100/- per

Ankanam, LAO valued the land in terms of acreage instead of

Ankanams / Square Yards and fixed the compensation amount

Rs.85,000/- per acre which is abysmally low.

      (e) The LAO (RW-1) in his evidence contended that the market

value was fixed by taking the relevant facts into consideration which

by all means is just and reasonable one; there were no houses on the

acquired land; it does not have any potentiality as house site; it was

lying waste without any irrigation facility and the only potentiality of

the land is that same is carved out by the claimant into housing plots

with a view to get house site value in future. He thus defended the

compensation fixed by the LAO.


      (f) While so, the reference Court, observing that the Ex.A2 sale

deed dated 23.08.1988 was in respect of neighbouring land to the

subject land as per which, the land was purchased @ Rs.2,100/- per

ankanam, and the said sale deed was neither disputed nor taken into

consideration by the LAO for computing compensation, held that

Ex.A2 can be taken as basis for computing compensation.             The

reference Court enhanced the value per Ankanam from Rs.2,100 to

Rs.2,500/- and accordingly fixed the compensation.


      Hence the appeal by the LAO.
                                     4



3.    The claimant also filed cross-objections claiming that the

reference Court ought to have fixed compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per

Ankanam instead of Rs.2,500/- per Ankanam.



4.    Heard argument of leaned Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition    and   Sri    Sridhar      Reddy   leaned    counsel   for

respondent/claimant /cross objector.

5. Learned counsel for respondent placing judgment dated

06.02.2020 of division bench of this Court in L.A.A.S No.1969/2005

would submit that in respect of the same award, the division bench

has confirmed the value of land at Rs.2,500/- per Ankanam as fixed

by the reference Court and therefore, in terms thereof, order may be

passed and compensation fixed by the reference Court may be

confirmed.

6. We perused the order dated 06.02.2020 in L.A.A.S

No.1969/2005 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court.

The L.A.A.S No.1969/2005 was preferred by the Special Tahsildar,

(LA) aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2005 passed in

L.A.O.P.No.32/1997 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore relating to award No.9/1993-94 dated 28.02.1994. The LAO

challenged the order in L.A.O.P.No.32/1997 fixing the compensation

@ Rs.2,500/- per Ankanam. The division bench considering the

judgment of Apex Court in Huchanagouda v. Assistant

Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer1, by following the

view taken in its earlier judgment reported in the case of General

Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Rameshbahai

Jivanbhai Patel2, held as follows:

"From a perusal of the above referred two judgments, it is to be noted that depending on the facts of each case and the location / development on the potentiality of the area, the rise in market value in urban/semi-urban areas, is about 10% to 15% per annum and the corresponding increase in rural areas would be about 5% to 7%.

The subject land was acquired under the Notification dated 27.04.1992. Under Ex.A2, dated 22.08.1988, the adjacent land was purchased at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per Ankanam. Therefore, applying the above judgment of the Apex Court and 10% escalation, the market value enhanced by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per Ankanam, is just and reasonable.

Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court, and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the respondent - claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on additional amount and solatium following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.6271 of 1998, dated 19.09.2001. No order as to costs."

7. Needless to emphasize that the above judgment of Coordinate

Bench applies with all its fours to the case on hand since the present

case also arises out of the same award and also in respect of land

which is in the same vicinity.

(2020) 19 SCC 236 = MANU/SC/1033/2019

(2008) 14 SCC 745

8. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the judgment in appeal in

L.A.A.S No.1969/2005 and in terms thereof, this appeal is dismissed

by confirming the order passed by the reference Court. It is further

held that the respondent/claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits

including interest on additional amount and solatium following the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India in Civil