Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Special Deputy Collector, vs Golla Balaswamy Died By His L.Rs., on 31 March, 2023

Bench: M.Ganga Rao, T Mallikarjuna Rao

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

               L.A.A.S.Nos.175, 204 and 250 of 2012

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Ganga Rao)


     The      Special   Deputy   Collector,   Land   Acquisition   &

Rehabilitation, Srisailam Project, Kurnool District filed these

appeals under the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the Common

Order of the Reference Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur

passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.7/2006, 72/2005 and 52/2005 dated

01.11.2011. The subject lands in all the O.Ps. are acquired for

the purpose of construction of Alaganur Balancing Reservoir at

Alaganur Village, Midthur Mandal. The question of fact and law in

all these appeals are same.      Hence, all the appeals are heard

together and disposed of by this common judgment.


2.   The Land Acquisition Officer - Special Deputy Collector,

Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Srisailam Project on the

requisition of    the Executive Engineer, KCC Division No.4,

Nandikotkur, acquired the land extent Ac.87.09 of Alaganur

Village, Midthur Mandal for construction of Alaganur Balancing

Reservoir.     The lands are coming under submersion and
                                  2



peripheral area.   The prepared sub division records were pre-

scrutinized by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records,

Kurnool. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for an

extent of Ac.87.09 was issued while invoking urgency clause

under Section 17(4) of the Act by dispensing with the enquiry

under Section 5-A of the Act and the same was published in

Gazette on 27.04.2000. The draft declaration under Section 6 of

the Act was published in A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary SSP

No.60 dated 04.04.2000 and the same was published in Telugu

newspaper Eenadu daily on 02.05.2000 and the substance of the

draft declaration was also published in Alaganur village on

23.06.2000.    The Land Acquisition Office after survey and

personal inspection along with the officials, categorized the

acquired lands in three categories to fix the market value viz., 1)

Category-I - dry lands which are under cultivation with own bore

well water and raising wet crops.     The land extent Ac.6.40 in

Sy.No.205 and Ac.1.79 in Sy.No.207 are coming under this

category; 2) Category-II - dry lands which are under cultivation

with other bore well water and raising wet crops. The land extent

Ac.3.30 in Sy.No.203/4, Ac.3.36        in Sy.No.204, Ac.0.22 in
                                    3



Sy.No.304/1B, Ac.1.23 in Sy.No.314/2B and Ac.1.30 in Sy.No.316

are coming under this category; and 3) Category-III - rest of the

lands in other survey numbers i.e., dry lands irrigated with

rainfed    would come under this category.      They are land extent

Ac.7.45 in Sy.No.209/1, Ac.5.22 in Sy.No.268/2, Ac.1.23 in

Sy.No.303/B2, Ac.0.62 in Sy.No.415/1, Ac.9.30 in Sy.No.440/A1,

Ac.16.90    in   Sy.No.474,    Ac.3.82   in   Sy.No.516,   Ac.8.30    in

Sy.No.522, Ac.5.26 in Sy.No.267, Ac.1.72 in Sy.No.302/2, Ac.2.68

in Sy.No.318/2, Ac.1.78 in Sy.No.435, Ac.1.18 in Sy.No.472,

Ac.1.75 in Sy.No.479/2 and Ac.2.28 in Sy.No.517. In order to fix

the market value of the lands under acquisition, the following sale

transactions of Alaganur village registered from 22.06.1997 to

23.06.2000 for the crucial period of preceding three years from the

last date of publication of draft notification, have been ascertained

from Sub-Registrar's office:

Sl. Document No. and Date       Survey
                                                Extent     Rate per acre
No.     of Registration         Number
 1. 1555/28-7-1997               131/1           0-40
                                 131/2           0-36
                                 133/1           1-62           6,000/-
                                  386            2-83
                                  387            0-20           5,000/-
2,   1929/23-9-1997               355           0-1 ¼        2,40,000/-
3.   537/14-5-1999                131            0-70
                                  133            1-50           8,182/-
4.   538/14-5-1999                133            0-80           8,125/-
5.   867/11-6-1999               25/2            1-12          73,214/-
                                    4


6.    dt.14-10-1999               340          2-15          1,39,088/-
7.    1705/7-12-1999              192          5.00             4,000/-
8.    1737/16-12-1999           420/2A         4.88             7,377/-
9.    1764/28-12-1999            237/1         0.68
                                 237/2         1.33            8,955/-

     The Special Deputy Collector had inspected the lands under

acquisition and the sale lands on 17.06.2000 along with the

Special Deputy Tahsildar, Special Surveyor and the Village

Administrative    Officer,   Alaganur.   Out    of    the   nine   sale

transactions, the sale transaction in sale item No.2 is the small

extent measuring Ac.0.75 and below and it do not represent the

true value of the lands under acquisition and hence the same is

discarded. The sale transactions at Sl.Nos.1, 3 and 9 are mixed

sales of lands at 2 or 3 survey number put together and they do

not represent the true value of the lands under acquisition and

hence they are also discarded. The sale transactions in the sale

item Nos.4 and 8 were occurred in different survey numbers which

are far away from the lands under acquisition and they do not

represent the value of the lands under acquisition and hence they

are discarded. The sale transactions in sale item Nos.5 and 6 are

registered vide Document Nos.867/1999 and 1705/1999 for an

amount of Rs.73,214/- and Rs.1,39,088/- to an extent of Ac.1.12

and Ac.2.15 respectively and they were occurred on 14.10.1999
                                  5



and 17.12.1999 and they do not represent the true market value

and hence they were also discarded.        The same transaction at

Sl.No.7 is purchased for Rs.4,000/- per acre and the same do not

represent the true market value as it is a lesser valuable and

hence same is discarded.      As there are no sale transactions

remained in Alaganur village for consideration of true value of the

lands under acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed

Rs.30,000/- per acre for dry lands in Category-III, Rs.40,000/- per

acre for the lands in Category-II and Rs.50,000/- per acre for the

lands in Category-I.


3.   The Land Acquisition Officer while determining the market

value had issued notices as required under Section 9(1) and 10 of

the Act and the same were published on 16.10.2000.             The

individual notices were also served under Section 9(3) and 10 of

the Act on all persons interested under acquisition on 16.10.2000

calling for their claims and objections.    The award enquiry was

conducted on 02.11.2000 at Alaganur village by giving clear 15

days time from the date of service of notices under Section 9(3)

and 10 of the Act and they were given sufficient time and

opportunity to produce documentary evidence and also to file any
                                   6



written statement by way of affidavits in support of their claims for

payment of compensation.       The Land Acquisition Officer having

considered all the documents and the evidence produced by the

respondents-claimants,     passed     the   award   by   fixing   the

compensation as stated supra along with 30% solatium and 12%

additional market value.

4. Being aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Land

Acquisition Officer, the respondents-claimants sought for

reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for

enhancement of compensation to Rs.2 lakhs per acre having

received the compensation under protest.

5. The Reference Court issued notices to the respondents-

claimants and in turn they filed claim petitions. During enquiry,

on behalf of the claimants, PW1 - G.Subbanna was examined and

Ex.A.1 - certified copy of sale deed dated 11.06.1999 got marked.

On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW1 - D.Ch.Nagamma was

examined and Ex.B.1 - Award No.26/2000 dated 13.12.2000 got

marked.

6. The Reference Court having heard both sides allowed the

claim petitions by fixing the market value of the acquired lands at

Rs.1,54,000/- per acre. The Reference Court also granted

solatium at 30% on the market value, additional market value @

12% p.a. on the market value of the land from the date of

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of award of

the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land

whichever is earlier and interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and

thereafter @ 15% p.a. for the remaining period.

7. Aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court, the Land

Acquisition Officer filed these appeals on various grounds raised

in the Memorandum of Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Act.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the common order passed by the Reference Court in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.1,54,000/- per acre is justifiable or not?

9. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals, while referring the

award of the Land Acquisition Officer, would contend that the

Land Acquisition Officer had inspected the acquired lands,

obtained several sale transactions from the Sub-Registrar's Office,

Nandikotkur, conducted a detailed enquiry and observed number

of sale deeds before fixing the market value. Hence, the

contention of the respondents-claimants that the Land Acquisition

Officer without conducting proper enquiry and opportunity to

them fixed the compensation, is unsustainable. The award of the

Reference Court enhancing the compensation is without any basis

and the escalation of 10% for every year is exorbitant and not

based on any evidence and liable to be set aside and thereby prays

to allow the appeal suits.

10. Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents-claimants, has taken this Court to the evidence on

record and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He

states that the acquired lands are fertile lands and they are

irrigated with well water and raised commercial crops like chillies,

cotton, etc. and the claimants used to get income of Rs.15,000/-

per acre for every year by way of two crops after deducting all

expenses on the date of notification, but no justifiable reasons are

shown by the Land Acquisition Officer in not considering the sale

transactions obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Officer. Whereas,

the Reference Court has taken into consideration the evidence of

PW1 coupled with Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.1, which are made prior to

issuance of notification, rightly fixed the market value of the

acquired lands at Rs.1,54,000/- per acre. He further states that

the respondents/claimants are permanently deprived of their

livelihood and they are living only on agriculture. He further

states that there is no illegality or irregularity in enhancing the

compensation to Rs.1,54,000/- for all categories of acquired lands

including Category-III lands by the reference Court and the

appellant has failed to show any ground much less legal grounds

for interference of this Court in the impugned order.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record,

this Court found that the subject lands were acquired by issuing

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition

Officer surveyed the lands along with Special Surveyor and the

Village Administrative Officer, Alaganur and conducted enquiry.

He considered the claims of the respondents-claimants based on

the evidence adduced by them and also considered the sale

transactions occurred during the period from 22.06.1997 to

23.06.2000, which is prior to the issuance of notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act. But, he discarded all the sale transactions

without assigning proper reasons and merely relied on the award

No.7/98 dated 06.06.1998 and fixed the compensation.

12. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the sale item Nos.5

and 6 for an extent of Ac.1.12 and Ac.2.15 for an amount of

Rs.73,214/- and Rs.1,39,088/- respectively. The said sale

transactions occurred on 14.10.1999 and 17.12.1999. But, both

the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court has

not considered the nature of the lands mentioned in the said sale

items. The Reference Court also grossly erred in considering the

said sale transactions for enhancing the compensation. Whereas,

the Land Acquisition Officer only relied on the award No.7/98

dated 06.06.1998, wherein the compensation was awarded

Rs.30,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.50,000/- for dry lands

with well irrigation in Sy.No.188, etc. of Alaganur village for an

extent of Ac.251.53, which are said to be within 1 km. radius and

are very nearer to the acquired lands, and fixed the market value

at Rs.30,000/- per acre for dry lands mentioned under Category-

III, Rs.40,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands mentioned in

Category-II and Rs.50,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands

categorised as Category-I. However, the present acquisition is by

notification dated 27.04.2000, whereas the lands acquired in

Award No.7/98 dated 06.06.1998 for the same purpose are much

prior to the acquisition of the present acquired lands.

13. However, even if the amount of compensation awarded vide

Award No.7/98 dated 06.06.1998 is taken into consideration as

sales reflected, the said award fixed at Rs.30,000/- per acre for

the dry lands situated in Sy.No.188 which are nearer to the

present acquisition of lands. As the market value of the lands

increases every year, the Hon'ble Apex Court said that 10 to 15%

needs to be enhanced every year.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji

Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and

others1, while dealing with the provisions of Sections 23 and 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, held at Para 17 thus:

"It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and

(2012) 5 S.C.C. 432

accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."

In the very same judgment, while relying on the decisions in

Ranjit Singh Vs. UT of Chandigarh [(1992) 4 SCC 659], DDA Vs.

Bali Ram Sharma (2 supra) and ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai

Jivanbhai Patel [(2008) 14 SCC 745, held that where the acquired

land in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune of

10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is situated in

rural areas, increase can be between 5% to 7% per annum. In

Union of India Vs. Harpat Singh [(2009) 14 SCC 375], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court applied the rule of 10% increase per annum.

15. The value of the lands increases every year and the

Reference Court having considered the potentiality, proximity and

usage of the lands as reflected in the award of the Land

Acquisition Officer, grossly erred in granting Rs.1,54,000/- per

acre for the acquired lands though they belong to Category-III dry

lands.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development

Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others2, while dealing with the

provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, held at

Para 7 thus:

"The land which is the subject-matter of this appeal is acquired for the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24-11-1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 17-11-1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal. In the result this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs 345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs 76,550 per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs."

The Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad in the case of Valluri Veerabhadra Rao and others

(1 supra), having taken into consideration of the facts narrated

(2004) 6 S.C.C. 533

therein by categorization of the acquired land into three categories

by Land Acquisition Officer viz., 1) dry land with wet crops; 2) dry

land with dry crops; and 3) waste land, held thus:

"... There is clear evidence in the case that the entire land was well developed containing facilities for irrigation of crops and sugarcane plantation and paddy crops are generally raised in these lands. The entire extent of land has thus been utilised for raising wet crops with the help of bore-wells. The land is, therefore, uniform in fertility and value. The entire land should be categorised as dry land with wet crops. There is no warrant to categorise further as has been done by the L.A.O. Accordingly the entire land should be categorised as one land and has to be valued as such."

However, the Division Bench, having taken into

consideration the escalation of the land prices year by year by

10% and taking into previous acquisition of the land in the year

1980-81 in and around the vicinity of the present acquired land,

enhanced the compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre from

Rs.30,000/- to the acquired lands, following the decisions of the

Hon'ble Apex Court.

16. In the case on hand, the non-consideration of sale

transaction under Ex.A.1 as per the provisions of the Act, is illegal

and arbitrary. Both the Land Acquisition Officer and the

Reference Court have not considered Ex.B.1 and for which no

reasons are given.