Smt. G.Aruna Devi vs The Special Deputy Collector, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4803 Tel

                 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
                                 AND
           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

               I.A.No.1 of 2022 in L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018

                                    And

               L.A.A.S.Nos. 589 of 2017 and 141 of 2018


COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridevi)

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since L.A.A.S.No.589 of 2017 filed by the Land Acquisition

Officer and L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018 filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very

same judgment, dated 28.02.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.734 of 2012

on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under

SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at

L.B.Nagar (for short "the reference Court").


2.    Brief facts of the case are that upon the requisition made by

the Estate Officer, HUDA, Begumpet, for acquisition of the land of

the claimant to an extent of 3,016.4 square yards in Sy.No.558 along

with other lands situated at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, for

formation of outer ring road from Shamirpet to Amberpet, the

Government has initiated acquisition proceedings by publishing

notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
                                   2
                                                     GSD, J and MGP, J
                                           Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018

short "the Act") on 14.12.2005 and 18.12.2006. After due enquiry,

the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award under Ex.B1 fixed

the market value of the acquired land at Rs.400/- per square yard.

Having received the compensation under protest, the claimant sought

for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the

market value.      The reference Court duly analyzing the evidence

adduced by both the parties, has enhanced the market value from

Rs.400/- to Rs.3,000/- per square yard.        Aggrieved by the said

enhancement, while the L.A.O. preferred L.A.A.S.No.589 of 2017,

seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimant filed

L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018.


3.    Heard learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, appellant in

L.A.A.S.No.589 of 2017, and the learned counsel appearing for the

claimant, appellant in L.A.A.S.No.141 of 2018. Perused the material

available on record.


4.           During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant filed

I.A.No.1 of 2022 with a prayer to receive certain documents as

additional evidence.      The documents which were filed by the

claimant along with the I.A. are the Xerox copies of sale deeds of that

particular area.     Though the said documents are sought to be

received as additional evidence by the claimant, the learned Standing
                                   3
                                                    GSD, J and MGP, J
                                          Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018

Counsel for HUDA has vehemently opposed the same contending that

they are not at all relevant for the purpose of determining the market

value of the acquired land.


5.         The first document is the agreement of sale-cum-general

power of attorney (with possession), dated 07.08.2006 wherein the

land covered under the said document, situated at Ghatkesar village,

to an extent of 146 square yards was sold for a consideration of

Rs.4,38,000/- which works out to Rs.3,000/- per square yard.      The

second document is the gift settlement deed dated 11.06.2007

wherein the land which is also situated at Ghatkesar, the market

value was fixed at Rs.6,40,000/- for total area of 112.5 square yards

which works out to Rs.5,700/- per square yard. The third document

is the registered sale deed dated 10.12.2000 for a open plot of 478

square yards and the sale consideration therein was fixed at

Rs.19,12,000/- which works out to Rs.4,000/- per square yard.

However, in the present case, the notification was published on

14.12.2005

and 18.12.2006. Hence, the two documents i.e., the gift

settlement deed, dated 11.06.2007 which is subsequent to the

present acquisition notification and the copy of the sale deed dated

10.12.2000 which is more than preceding three years to the

acquisition notification, are not relevant for the purpose of

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018

determining the market value of the acquired land. There remains

the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession) dated 07.08.2006

which pertains to four months prior to the acquisition notification and

as the land covered therein was situated in the same vicinity, the said

document is relevant for the purpose of determining the market

value. Therefore, this Court is inclined to receive the said document

as additional evidence and mark the same as Ex.A9 while rejecting

the remaining two documents. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2022 stands

ordered.

6. Coming to the market value of the acquired land, the learned

Standing Counsel for HUDA has contended that the reference Court

has awarded exaggerated amount towards compensation in the

absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the claimant. It is

contended that the L.A.O. duly taking into consideration the

potentiality of the land in the vicinity, has awarded just and

reasonable compensation for the acquired land and therefore, the

reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation from

Rs.400/- to Rs.3,000/- per square yard which is almost nine times the

value that was awarded by the L.A.O.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that the reference Court has committed a manifest error

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018

in not properly appreciating the evidence brought on record, which

resulted in fixing the lesser market value. The oral and documentary

evidence adduced by the claimant has amply established that the

market value of the acquired land is much more than what has been

fixed by the reference Court. In as much as the acquired land is

situated very near to the proposed O.R.R., the reference Court ought

to have taken into consideration the future potentiality of the

acquired land. Alternatively, the learned counsel, while referring to

Ex.A9-agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession), has contended

that since the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.3,000/- per square

yard, if this Court is not inclined to enhance the market value, sought

to maintain the market value as was fixed by the reference Court.

8. As seen from the record, the land of the claimant to an extent

of 3016.4 square yards at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal was acquired

for the purpose of outer ring road from Shamirpet to Amberpet. The

L.A.O. has fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per square yard.

Before the reference Court, to support the claim that the land would

fetch Rs.6,000/- per square yard, the claimant has filed copies of sale

deeds vide Exs.A2, A4 to A7. Ex.A4 is the sale deed, dated

19.02.2004 under which the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.750/-

per square yard. So also under Ex.A5-sale deed dated 02.12.2004 the

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018

land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Under

Ex.A6-sale deed dated 11.02.2004 the land was sold at Rs.1178/- per

square yard. Under Ex.A7-sale deed dated 18.01.2005 the land was

sold at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Thus, those sale deeds would

reflect that even preceding two years to the present acquisition, the

land in the vicinity was being sold at more than Rs.1,000/- per square

yard. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was not right in

awarding the meager amount of Rs.400/- per square yard. As regards

the enhancement of the market value by the reference Court at

Rs.3,000/- per square yard, it is to be seen that under Ex.A9-the

agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A.(with possession), which pertains to

four months prior to the present acquisition notification, the land in

the vicinity was sold at Rs.3,000/- per square yard. Such being the

case, basing on the sale transaction covered by Ex.A9, this Court is of

the view that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the

reference Court at Rs.3,000/- per square yard is just and reasonable,

which needs no interference.

9. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed confirming the

judgment passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.734 of 2012,

dated 28.02.2017. It is made clear that the claimant is entitled all

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_589_2017 and 141_2018

other statutory benefits as per the amended Act including the

interest on the additional market value and interest on solatium etc.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________ G. SRI DEVI, J

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MARKED THROUGH THIS COURT

Ex.A9: Agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession), dated 07.08.2006

____________ G. SRI DEVI, J

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J

21.09.2022 gkv/tsr