Telangana High Court

Gundugonda vs The Government Of A.P. on 11 November, 2021

Bench: P Naveen Rao, P.Sree Sudha

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
                             AND
            THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

        + LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.573 OF 2007


% 11.11.2021

# Sri Gundugonda, S/o. Naggonda,
(died per Lr.s. C23 and 24)
R/o. Itkepally Village and others.
                                                .....Appellants

      And

$ The Government of A.P., through
Spl.Dy.Collector, (L.A.) Singoor
Project, Medak at Sangareddy.

                                                .....Respondent

! Counsel for the appellants   : Sri K. Raji Reddy

Counsel for respondent         : Government Pleader for
                                  Appeals
< Gist                         :
> Head Note                    :
? Citations                    : (2017) (8) SCC 426
                                      2




            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          HYDERABAD
                             ********

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.573 OF 2007

Between:

Sri Gundugonda, S/o. Naggonda, (died per Lr.s. C23 and 24) R/o. Itkepally Village and others.

.....Appellants And

The Government of A.P., through Spl.Dy.Collector, (L.A.) Singoor Project, Medak at Sangareddy.

                                                  .....Respondent


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED                : 11.11.2021


SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

1.    Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers :      Yes / No
      may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be :      Yes / No
      marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3.   Whether Their Lordship wish to           :   Yes / No
     see the fair copy of the Judgment ?




            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
                             AND
            THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.573 OF 2007

Date:11.11.2021

Between:

Sri Gundugonda, S/o. Naggonda, (died per Lr.s. C23 and 24) R/o. Itkepally Village and others.

.....Appellants And

The Government of A.P., through Spl.Dy.Collector, (L.A.) Singoor Project, Medak at Sangareddy.

.....Respondent

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.573 OF 2007

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Heard Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and

learned Government Pleader for Appeals.

2. On the ground that the subject lands were coming within the

submergence area of Singoor Irrigation Project, the process to acquire

the subject lands in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short 'the Act, 1894'), was set in motion by issuing draft notification

and ultimately culminating in passing an Award on 19.02.1990. The

subject lands acquired for the said purpose in Jamalpur Village appears

to be the hamlet of Itkepally Village which was a Gram Panchayat. The

Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired

lands at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said determination

of market value, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of

the Act, 1894. Their reference was registered as O.P.No.10 of 2002 in

the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy. The claimants sought for

enhancement of compensation by fixing the land value at Rs.30,000/-

per acre for dry lands and Rs.40,000/- per acre for wet lands, with all

statutory benefits flowing there from. In support of their claim for

enhancement, the claimants relied upon the judgments rendered in

O.P.No.213 of 1995 and O.P.No.229 of 2003, marked as Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A.2, order dated 19.12.2000 in Appeal No.1213 of 2000 as Ex.A.3

and two sale deeds dated 12.01.1987 and 17.01.1987, marked as

Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 respectively. They have cited three witnesses to

depose on their behalf. On evaluation of the evidence on record, the

reference Court did not find merit in the claim to enhance the

compensation to Rs.18,500/- for dry lands and Rs.19,500/- for wet

lands or to Rs.25,000/- as sought by them, but having found that the

compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is not

sufficient, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per

acre, treating the same as just compensation. Not satisfied with the

determination of compensation by the reference Court, this appeal is

preferred.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the lands

acquired are fertile, several commercial crops are raised and yearly

yielding per acre was between Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/-. These factors

ought to have been considered to determine higher compensation. His

further contention is that the reference Court has not properly

evaluated the evidence brought on record in support of the claimants to

award higher compensation. He further submits that the appellants are

entitled to revision of market rate to Rs.25,000/- as reflected in Ex.A.1

to Ex.A.5 and all the consequential benefits flowing there from.

4. Learned Government Pleader supports the view taken by the

reference Court. He further submits that in fact the claimants

submitted to the Land Acquisition Officer to grant them Rs.15,000/-

per acre only, as market value and they would be satisfied if that

amount is fixed and they would not agitate on any other claim. Having

restricted their claim to Rs.15,000/- per acre, it is no more open for the

appellants to seek enhancement of the compensation and file this

appeal. According to learned Government Pleader, this is a vexatious

litigation and is liable to be dismissed.

5. The contention of learned Government Pleader that as claimants

only demanded Rs.15,000/- per acre, they are not entitled to ask higher

market value, is stated to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, from the

material on record and the discussion in the order of the reference

Court, it appears that claimants never confined their claim to fix the

market value at Rs.15,000/-per acre only. It appears during the course

of discussions before the Land Acquisition Officer, they have requested

him to determine Rs.15,000/- per acre as market value. But this offer

was not accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer who fixed the market

value at Rs.10,000/- only. Soon after the Land Acquisition Officer

determined the market value of the land in the said manner, they

received the compensation under protest and immediately filed

applications U/s 18 of the Act, 1894 to enhance the compensation. On

reference, before the reference Court they led evidence in support of

their claim for higher compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that

they have accepted Rs.15,000/- per acre, as valid compensation and

estopped from asking higher compensation. It would have been entirely

different aspect if the request of claimants was accepted by the Land

Acquisition Officer and he has passed concerned award.

6. Secondly, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra and

others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others1, what is required to be

considered by the reference Court or the High Court in a given

circumstance, is what is the just compensation payable to owner of the

land subjected to compulsory acquisition. While considering the just

(2017) (8) SCC 426

compensation payable to a land holder, it is not necessary that the

Court should confine fixing of compensation based on the compensation

actually sought by the claimants and in a given situation, it is

permissible for the reference Court or the High Court to enhance the

compensation, if the reference Court or the High Court is of the opinion

that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation than what was

sought by him. In matters of compulsory acquisition of land, the

principle of estoppel cannot be applied to off shoot a person's claim for

higher compensation, if such claim is otherwise valid.

7. Coming back to the claim for higher compensation by the

appellants, it is seen from the order of the reference Court that on the

lands acquired in Itkepally Village for the same purpose, on due

consideration of the material on record, the reference Court enhanced

the compensation to Rs.19,500/- to wet lands and Rs.18,500/- for dry

lands. On the claim of far higher compensation, the reference Court

noticed that they have not placed any material to show that their lands

are also equally fertile and the yield from the lands owned by them is of

the same nature as claimed by the other landowners in whose favour

such enhancement was granted. In the absence of sale transactions in

Jamalpur Village, the sale transactions of Khan Jamalpur and Itkepally

villages were considered but while evaluating the value, the reference

Court was not persuaded to agree with the claim of appellants for the

reasons assigned therein. Paragraph No.16 of the order of the reference

Court reads as under:

"The learned counsel for the claimants argued vehemently that the value for the acquired lands of the claimants to be fixed @ Rs.40,000/- per acre considering the then existing sale transactions and on the basis of capitalization method. Though it is stated in the evidence

affidavit of PW.1 that the annual income was Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/- there is no evidence documentary placed by the claimants in the present case. In the absence of such type of evidence, enhancing the market value in respect of acquired lands of the claimants on the basis of capitalization method cannot be adopted. Coming to the aspect of comparable sales, PW.1 deposed that the acquired lands and the lands covered by Ex.A.4 and A.5 are similar in nature, fertility and value. Of course, PWs.2 and 3 also stated the same in their evidence. As submitted by the learned Government Pleader, six sale deeds taken place during the years 1985 to 1987 and they were considered by the L.A.O., while fixing the market value and that there were no other sales of lands for consideration which were similar in fertility.......... The record Ex.B.1 shows that the claimants insisted the Land Acquisition Officer to award Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of acquired lands. Out of the documents Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, only Ex.A.2 document deals with dry lands of Itkepally Village and the value fixed at Rs.18,500/- per acre. As verified from Ex.A.2, much evidence was placed before the Court in respect of yield per acre and calculation was made considering the income per quintal and basing on the same market value of dry B.C. land worked out. In the present case, the statistical information given in the case under Ex.A.2 not placed by the claimants. Except mentioning the yearly income per acre in the evidence affidavit of PW.1 there is no other details available. Just like in a civil suit, in the reference U/s 18 of L.A.Act, it is for the claimants to establish their claim by adducing sufficient and convincing oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their case. Except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence which speaks about the value of the lands of Jamalpur at the time of acquisition and crops that were being raised in those lands and about the yield the cultivators were getting at the relevant point of time. However, the documents could show that the rate per acre by 1987 in respect of acquired land was more than Rs.10,000/- fixed by L.A.O. through documents Ex.A.4 and A.5".

8. Having arrived at the said conclusion, the reference Court

declined to grant the claim of enhancing the compensation. However,

having found that the compensation determined by the Land

Acquisition Officer is wholly inadequate and by applying guess work,

taking into consideration other sale transactions and the location of the

land, the reference Court enhanced the market value per acre, to

Rs.15,000/-.

9. We do not see any error in the manner in which the evidence was

assessed by the reference Court and reasons assigned in support of its

decision in not accepting the claim of the appellants to enhance the

compensation.

10. The appeal fails and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Appeal