Special Deputy Collector L.A vs K.Sathyanarayana Reddy And 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4804 Tel

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

               I.A.No.2 of 2022 in L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018

                                   And

               L.A.A.S.Nos. 571 of 2017 and 140 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.571 of 2017 filed by the Land Acquisition

Officer and L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018 filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very

same judgment, dated 28.02.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.733 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 claimants to an extent of 11,986 square yards in Sy.No.167 along

with other lands situated at Keesara Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, 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
                                    2
                                                    GSD, J and MGP, J
                                           Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018

Act, 1894 (for 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.375/- 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.375/- to Rs.3,000/- per square yard.

Aggrieved by the said enhancement, while the L.A.O. preferred

L.A.A.S.No.571    of   2017,   seeking    further   enhancement     of

compensation, the claimants filed L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018.


3.      Heard learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, appellant in

L.A.A.S.No.571 of 2017, and the learned counsel appearing for the

claimants, appellant in L.A.A.S.No.140 of 2018. Perused the material

available on record.


4.      During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant filed I.A.No.2

of 2022 with a prayer to receive certain documents as additional

evidence. The documents which were filed by the claimants 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 claimants, the learned Standing Counsel
                                   3
                                                    GSD, J and MGP, J
                                          Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018

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_571_2017 and 140_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.A6 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 claimants. 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.375/- 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 claimants has

contended that the reference Court has committed a manifest error

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_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 claimants 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.A6-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 claimants to an extent

of 11986 square yards situated at Keesara Dayara Village was acquired

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

L.A.O. has fixed the market value at Rs.375/- per square yard.

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

fetch Rs.6,000/- per square yard, the claimants have filed Ex.A1-

market value certificate, Ex.A2-pattadar pass book, Ex.A3-title deed

of the Rajendra Kumar Masrani, Ex.A4-proceedings and Ex.A5

compensation package for the O.R.R. project. The record reveals

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018

that P.W.1 did not file any document to show that in the year 2006

the lands surrounding his property were already developed. P.W.1

admitted that he did not file any document to show that in the year

2006, the market value of the property was prevailing at

Rs.10,45,000/- per acre. As per Ex.A5-consent award, an amount of

Rs.1,110/- was fixed per square yard. In Ex.B1-award itself, the

L.A.O. has categorically observed that sale item No.164 of 2004, the

sale consideration was Rs.1,000/- per square yard for the land in

Sy.Nos.563 to 566 and 559. Further, in respect of land in Sy.No.577,

the sale consideration was shown as Rs.1,000/- per square yard at

sale item No.10. So also item No.77 the sale consideration was shown

as Rs.1178/- per square yard. Thus, those sale items would reflect

that even preceding two years to the present acquisition, the land in

the vicinity was being sold for more than Rs.1,000/- per square yard.

Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was not right in awarding the

meager amount of Rs.375/- 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.A6-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.A6, this Court is of

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018

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.733 of 2012,

dated 28.02.2017. It is made clear that the claimants are entitled all

other statutory benefits as per the amended Act including the

interest on enhanced 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.A6: 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

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_571_2017 and 140_2018