Telangana High Court
The Land Aquisition Officer vs Basukula Yadagiri on 9 August, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LAAS.No.160 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant and Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for respondent
No.1/claimant No.1.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer
and Special Deputy Collector, Hanamkonda, aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 27.10.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.361 of
2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the lands
admeasuring 28,646.75 square yards situated in Sy.Nos.65, 66, 70
to 76 and 78 to 82 of Chagal Village, Ghanpur (Station) Mandal,
Warangal District, were acquired for excavation of R.F. Main
Canal of R.S. Ghanpur Reservoir under JCR-GLIP Project, Phase-
II, within the limits of the said village; that the lands of the
2 AKS,J & LNA, J
respondents/claimants, i.e., an extent of 7,502 square yards in
Sy.Nos.74 and 78 and an extent of 4,114 square yards in
Sy.Nos.65, 70 and 71 belonging to respondent Nos.5 and 1,
respectively, were acquired for the said purpose; that draft
notification under Section 4(1) and the draft declaration under
Section 6 of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette on 12.02.2008
and 13.02.2008, respectively; and that the Land Acquisition
Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed Award
No.45/2010-11, dated 15.12.2010, granting compensation
@ Rs.60/- per square yard for Category-I lands and @ Rs.90,000/-
per acre for Category-II lands.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted under
the said Award, the respondents/ claimants sought reference under
Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as
L.A.O.P.No.361 of 2011 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the
respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to
A-7 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was
examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.
3 AKS,J & LNA, J
6. The Reference Court by the impugned order enhanced the
market value @ Rs.200/- per square yard for Category-I lands and
@ Rs.60/- per square yard for Category-II lands, apart from
granting other benefits under the Act to the respondents/claimants.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Reference
Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the
Reference Court erred in relying upon Ex.A-2, which relates to
small extent of land i.e., 240 square yards and is a house plot, as
comparable sale, whereas the acquired lands are agricultural lands;
that the Reference Court erred in granting compensation on
yardage basis instead of acreage basis; that the Reference Court
also erred in not deducting 40% of the value assessed towards
developmental charges; and thus, the Reference Court erred in
enhancing the market value of the acquired lands by three times
more than the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer
and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1
contended that the acquired lands are situated abutting the National
4 AKS,J & LNA, J
Highway No.202 and are suitable for house plots and have great
potentiality and therefore, the Reference Court rightly fixed the
compensation for the acquired lands on yardage basis. He further
contended that relying on the sale deeds under Exs.A-2 to A-6,
which relate to the transactions during the years 2007-2008, the
Reference Court has rightly enhanced the market value of the
acquired lands and therefore, the impugned order warrants no
interference by this Court and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. The respondents/claimants have marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 in
support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. Ex.A-1-
sale deed relates to the transaction of the year 2004, i.e., about six
years prior to the issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act and Exs.A-2 and A-7 are dated 28.02.2008 and
18.04.2008 i.e., after the date of issuance of draft declaration under
Section 6 of the Act and therefore, Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-7 cannot be
taken into consideration for determination of market value of the
acquired lands.
11. In the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically
observed that the subject acquired lands situated in Sy.Nos.65, 70,
5 AKS,J & LNA, J
71 and 74 have same fertility and potentiality as that of the land in
Sy.Nos.23 and 24 and relying upon the sale transaction of the year
2005, the Land Acquisition Officer initially assessed the market
value of Category-I of the acquired lands @ Rs.100/- per square
yard, however, deducted 40% of the said value by terming it as
'depreciation value' and fixed the market value thereof @ Rs.60/-
per square yard. The question of depreciation arises only in cases
of buildings, structures, etc. In the instant case, the subject matter is
open land, which is acquired for excavation of R.F. Main Canal of
R.S. Ghanpur Reservoir, therefore, the question of depreciation
value does not arise. This opinion of this Court is fortified by the
decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. RDO1, wherein it is
held as under:-
"If the land is acquired for purpose of house sites 1/3rd
has to be deducted for roads and amenities. But this
land is acquired for purpose of construction of water
works reservoir and hence no deduction can be made."
12. Therefore, in the light of the above decision, this Court holds
that the Land Acquisition Officer is not justified in deducting 40%
1992 SCC OnLine AP 85
6 AKS,J & LNA, J
of the assessed market value by terming the same as 'depreciation
value'. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the
Reference Court erred in not deducting 40% towards
developmental charges is, therefore, unsustainable and merits no
consideration.
13. Ex.A-3 is the sale deed, dated 14.12.2007, whereunder land
to an extent of 200 square yards in Sy.No.23 was sold @ Rs.450/-
per square yard. Admittedly, even as per the Award of the Land
Acquisition Officer, the acquired lands have same the fertility and
potentiality as that of the land in Sy.No.23, which is fit for
construction of houses. It is also the case of the
respondents/claimants that the acquired lands are abutting National
Highway No.202, which remained undisputed by the appellant.
14. As regards Ex.A-4, it is sale deed dated 25.05.2007,
whereunder an extent of 200 square yards of land in Sy.No.22A/E
was sold @ Rs.400/- per square yard and Ex.A-6 is sale deed dated
07.12.2007 whereunder an extent of 369.72 square yards of land in
Sy.No.22A/E was sold @ Rs.350/- per square yard.
7 AKS,J & LNA, J
15. The Land Acquisition Officer also relied upon the
transaction pertaining to sale of land in Sy.No.22/A/AE, however,
the said sale deed relates to the year 2006.
16. Therefore, Exs.A-3 to A-5, which relate to the year 2007 in
respect of the land in Sy.No.22/A/E can be taken into consideration
for assessment of market value of the acquired lands, as rightly
done so by the Reference Court.
17. Further, it is relevant to note that in the Award, the Land
Acquisition Officer has observed that the lands in Category-II are
contiguous to the lands in Category-I and are useful for commercial
purpose. In such an event, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Land Acquisition Officer has grossly erred in fixing the
market value of Category-II lands on acreage basis, which was
rightly interfered with by the Reference Court, on reference.
18. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the
Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record
and has rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands,
therefore, in the opinion of this Court no grounds are made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment.
8 AKS,J & LNA, J
19. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is devoid of merits and
is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
21. As a sequel, interim order, dated 26.07.2018, shall stand
vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated: 09.08.2024
dr
