Maruthi vs The Mro
2022 Latest Caselaw 647 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                          AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

                   APPEAL SUIT No.897 OF 2004

JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Laxman)


1.    This appeal assails the order dated 11.09.2003 in O.P.No.308

of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge,

Medak at Sangareddy (for short, reference Court), wherein and

whereby the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was

enhanced from Rs.1,800/- per acre to Rs.3,600/- per acre for the

acquired land belonging to the appellant herein.


2.    The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondent

herein is the respondent in O.P.No.308 of 1985. For the sake of

convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are

arrayed in the said OP.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the claimant is that he

was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gunta in Sy.No.4,

situated at Seri Damargidda Village, Manoor Mandal, Medak

District. The Government acquired the said land for providing

house sites to the weaker section families of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes, vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, which was published on 31.03.1980. The

possession of the said land was taken over by the Government on

26.02.1983. After award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has

passed an Award dated 30.10.1983 fixing the market value for the

acquired land of the claimant at Rs.1,800/- per acre, apart from

granting other consequential benefits. Dissatisfied with the same,

the claimant made reference for enhancement of compensation

from Rs.1,800/- per acre to Rs.10/- per square yard, since the

acquired land has potential value for house sites.

4. It is the further case of the claimant that the reference Court

has enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,800/- per acre to

Rs.3,600/- per acre, which is not in tune with the prevailing

market value of the acquired land and without considering the

evidence of the claimant and the documents relied upon by him.

According to the claimant, Ex.A-1 shows that the potentiality of the

land in Karasgutti Village and the land which was acquired has

similar advantages and potentials. Therefore, the reference Court

ought to have fixed the compensation of Rs.10/- per square yard by

relying upon Ex.A-1.

5. The case of the respondent is that the land was acquired for

providing house sites and the Land Acquisition Officer as well as

the reference Court have rightly discarded Exs.A-1 and A-2 in the

light of the evidence on record pertaining to the acquisition of land

in Sy.No.74 to an extent of Ac.2-00 gunta and odd for providing

house sites in the same village which culminated into passing of

order by the same Court in O.P.No.307 of 1985, wherein the

compensation for the lands acquired was fixed at Rs.3,600/- per

acre. Therefore, the reference Court, by relying upon Ex.B-2,

rightly fixed the compensation of Rs.3,600/- per acre, which

requires no interference. It is further averred that Ex.A-1 relates to

the village which is four kilometers away to Seri Damargidda

Village, where the subject land is located. As such, no reliance can

be placed on such a document, when there is sufficient evidence

available in the village where the present acquired land is situated.

6. In the reference Court, the claimant to support his case,

examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied upon Exs.A-1 and A-2. The

respondent, to support its case, examined R.W.1 and relied upon

Exs.B-1 and B-2.

7. The reference Court, by relying upon Ex.B-2, has enhanced

the compensation from Rs.1,800/- per acre to Rs.3,600/- per acre.

Dissatisfied with the said enhancement, the present appeal is at

the instance of the claimant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has submitted

that the reference Court wrongly discarded Ex.A-1 by stating that

the said transaction was only for Rs.2/- per square yard, when the

market value thereunder was for more than Rs.7/- per square

yard. It is also his contention that the reference Court ought not to

have discarded Ex.A-1 without any valid reasons, but it was

rejected based on Ex.A-2, earlier order of the reference Court. It is

also submitted that the lands acquired under Ex.B-2 order were

not potential for house sites, and hence, fixation of compensation

by relying upon Ex.B-2 is not justified. The reference Court ought

to have considered the independent evidence relied upon by the

claimant instead of Ex.A-2, which clinchingly establishes that the

subject land is potential in nature and situated near to the highway

leading from Aurad to Narayankhed. Therefore, he claims for

fixation of market value @ Rs.10/- per square yard by relying upon

Ex.A-1.

9. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition,

representing the State, has contended that the reference Court has

rightly discarded Exs.A-1 and A-2 for the reason that Ex.A-1 lands

are located in a different village which is at a distance of four

kilometers and Ex.A-2 was also discarded for the same reason. The

other reason for discarding Ex.A-1 was that in Ex.A-2 order of the

reference Court, such a document was relied upon and it was not

taken into consideration while fixing the market value. According

to the learned Government Pleader, the reference Court has rightly

relied upon Ex.B-2 which is relating to the lands acquired in the

same village and rightly granted compensation and hence, the

Award of the reference Court requires no interference by this Court.

10. The evidence on record shows that the subject land is located

near one kilometer to Narayankhed - Aurad highway. It is also not

in dispute that the land acquired is for the purpose of providing

house sites to the weaker sections. This means, the land acquired

was having potential value for house sites in the village.

11. The land relates to Karasgutti Village is situated at a distance

of four kilometers to the acquired land. R.W.1 has not denied the

claim of the claimant that the advantages like location of the village

as well as the fertility of the lands in Karasgutti Village and Seri

Damargidda Village is same. Admittedly, there is no sale

transaction pertaining to the house sites in Seri Damargidda

Village and it is not known on what basis the compensation of

Rs.3,600/- was fixed by the reference Court in O.P.No.307 of 1985

(Ex.B-2). Such a fixation under Ex.B-2 is not binding on the

claimant. The Court which is considering the material has to

independently assess the evidence available on record.

12. The only ground for denying the benefit under Ex.A-1 sale

transaction was that it relates to smaller extent. As per evidence of

R.W.1, the village is at a distance of four kilometers from the village

where the land was acquired in the present case. R.W.1 did not

dispute the similar advantages of Karasgutti Village and Seri

Damargidda Village. Ex.A-1 relates to house sites and there is no

law that smaller extent cannot be relied upon. It all depends upon

facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the

transaction under Ex.A-1 can be relied upon for the reason that the

subject land was also acquired for the purpose of providing house

sites. This itself indicates that the acquired land is having housing

potentiality. When the land acquired is having potential for house

site, reliance on smaller extent under Ex.A-1 transaction which

refers to the house site is not unreasonable or unjust.

13. Ex.B-2 order of reference Court also relates to the lands

acquired in Karasgutti Village where Ex.A-1 transaction was there.

In the said order, the reference Court has fixed the market value of

Rs.4/- per square yard. In fact, in the said reference Award,

Ex.A-1 was relied upon and market value was fixed. It is not

known whether the claimant thereunder has preferred any appeal

aggrieved by the order of the reference Court. In the present case,

the reference Court strongly relied upon Ex.B-2 i.e., its earlier order

pertaining to the lands acquired in Sy.No.74 of the same village

where the subject land is located. In the impugned order, no

reasons have been given by the reference Court to rely upon its

earlier order under Ex.B-2, to which the claimant is not a party.

The compensation is intended to place the loser of the land in an

advantageous position, but not below the position which he enjoyed

before the land was acquired. Any compensation fixed must put

the claimant in the same position which the claimant was enjoying.

This means, the compensation must be just which should make

the claimant to purchase alternative land.

14. In the present days, there is huge increase in the land rates.

The compensation which the claimant gets would hardly give an

advantage to purchase an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-05

guntas. If the market value fixed by the reference Court is to be

maintained, it would cause great amount of injustice to the

claimant, who for the sake of public purpose, has parted away his

valuable land. The person who parted away his land for the public

must be treated honourably and he must be paid just

compensation, so that he can purchase the similar extent of land in

the same or near village. The market value which the Land

Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Court has fixed does not

meet such a criteria.

15. Considering the above parameters, Ex.A-1 can be relied upon,

even though the land is located four kilometers, considering the

potentiality of the land to housing, its location as well as its

fertility. When the smaller extent is relied upon to fix the market

value of larger extent, the principle is that some deduction must be

given towards the development charges. In Ex.A-1, the land

covered for house sites and the present land acquired for the

purpose of house sites. Therefore, 30% has to be deducted towards

developmental charges by fixing the market value @ Rs.7/- per

square yards.

16. In the result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed as follows:

(i) The compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.3,600/-

per acre to Rs.7/- per square yard in respect of the acquired land;

(ii) 30% shall be deducted towards developmental charges after fixing the market value @ Rs.7/- per square yard;

(iii) The appellant is also entitled for other consequential benefits on the market value fixed so.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

_______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date:15.02.2022 TJMR