Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer, vs Ayyannagari Linga Reddy, on 14 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.396 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for
the respondents/claimants.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, Karimnagar District,
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed in
L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Sircilla (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on a requisition made
by the Executive Engineer (RWS), Karimnagar, for acquisition of
lands for construction of sumps and watchman quarters, lands to an
extent of 0-13 guntas in Sy.No.201 situated at Galipalli Village
belonging to claimant No 1, an extent of 0-14 guntas in Sy.No.940
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
situated at Venkatraopalli, H/o Repaka Revenue village, belonging
to claimant No.2 and an extent of 0-16 guntas in Sy.No.389
situated at Muskanipet village, belonging to claimant No.3, all dry
lands, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sircilla; that
urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short 'the Act') was invoked; that the draft notification
under Section 4(1) and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the
Act were published in the Gazette on 08-08-2008 and 18-08-2008,
respectively; that the possession of the lands was taken on
11-10-2002; that after due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer
determined the market value of the acquired land in Galipalli
Village @ Rs.70,000/- per acre, @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for the
acquired land in Venkatraopalli Village and @ Rs.70,000/- per acre
for the acquired land in Muskanipet Village and accordingly,
passed the Award, vide proceedings No.A1/1139/2005, dated
03-08-2009.
4. Not being satisfied with the Award, the respondents/
claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.28 of 2010 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-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer,
R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked.
6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market
value of the acquired lands situated in the aforesaid Villages @
Rs.88/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits
under the Act to the respondents/claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the
present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for
Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court has
erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands without
any basis or evidence on record; that the Reference Court has not
properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available
on record; that the Reference Court has failed to note that the
acquired lands are agricultural lands and are not part of any
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
sanctioned layout and therefore, the Reference Court erred in fixing
the market value of the acquired lands on yardage basis. Learned
Government Pleader, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned
order.
8. It was the case of the respondents/claimants before the
Reference Court that the lands under acquisition are very fertile
and are abutting main roads with high potential value for house
sites.
9. Perusal of the record discloses that in order to support their
claim for enhancement of compensation, before the Reference
Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were
examined. Claimant Nos.3 and 1, who got themselves examined as
P.W-1 and 2, respectively, deposed reiterating the averments made
in their claim petition. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that the acquired
lands are agricultural lands. P.W-3, who is the vendee of land in
Sy.No.318 of Ellanthakunta, deposed that under Ex.A-3, she
purchased land admeasuring 485.33 square yards @ rate of
Rs.190/- per square yard; that the land in Sy.No.389 of Muskanipet
is situated abutting the main road of Siddipet-Ellanthakunta and
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
has got high potentiality for house sites; and that the distance
between Muskanipet and Ellanthakunta is about 2 kms.
10. P.W-4 stated that he purchased plot admeasuring 328.58
square yards in Sy.No.389 of Muskanipet through Ex.A-1 in the
name of his wife-Suguna @ rate of Rs.80/- per square yard and that
the land in Sy.No.389 is situated abutting the main road of
Ellanthakunta-Siddipet.
11. Exs.A-2 and A-4 are also the registered sale deeds, dated
07.05.2007 and 26.02.2001, through which lands admeasuring
292 ½ square yards and 363 square yards in Sy.Nos.215 and 217 of
Ellanthakunta were sold @ Rs.290/- and Rs.150/- per square yard,
respectively. Though none was examined to prove Exs.A-2 and
A-4, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs
V.Narasaiah1, due credence can be given to the said documents.
12. Thus, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with
Exs.A-1 to A-4 goes to show that all the acquired lands are situated
2001(1) LACC 380
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
in Ellanthakunta Mandal and are abutting the main road of
Ellanthakunta-Siddipet.
13. R.W-1 admitted that all the acquired lands in Galipalli,
Muskanipet and Venkatraopalli Villages are situated abutting
Siddipet road and are similar in nature. He further admitted that as
per Ex.B-1-Award, the sale transactions pertaining to Sy.No.389 of
Muskanipet Village, ranges upto Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
14. Further, a perusal of Ex.B-1-Award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer goes to show that different extents of land in
Sy.Nos.389/ABCD and 389/A of Muskanipet Village, were sold on
yardage basis in the years 2007 and 2008, whereunder the highest
value was mentioned as Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
15. In this aspect, it is relevant to note the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Housing Board Vs. Panduranga
V.Sawanth2 and Atma Singh (died) through LRs. And others Vs.
State of Haryana 3, wherein it is held that in the absence of any
other evidence, the Court can take into consideration the
2010(15) SCC 276
2008(2) SCC 568
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
documents under which small pieces of land were purchased for
determining the value of the acquired land.
16. Therefore, if Exs.A-1, A-3 and Ex.B-1 and the evidence of
R.W-1 are read in harmony, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
available on record and rightly enhanced the market value of the
acquired land in Muskanipet @ Rs.88/- per square yard, which
warrants no interference by this Court.
17. As regards the acquired land in Galipalli Village, in the
impugned Award, the Reference Court observed that an extent of
Ac.0.13 guntas, out of the total extent of Acs.2.00, belonging to
claimant No.1 was acquired, which caused hardship to him in
carrying on agricultural operation in the remaining piece of land.
18. As regards the acquired land in Venkatraopalli, in Ex.B-1-
Award though the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to certain
sale deeds under which the land in Venkatraopalli was sold on
yardage basis, he discarded to adopt the market value mentioned
therein without assigning any reasons.
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, as the purpose of
acquisition and the date of issuance of 4(1) notification of the Act
in respect of the subject acquired lands are same and further, as
admitted by R.W-1, all the acquired lands are situated abutting the
main road of Siddipet-Ellanthakunta and the nature of lands being
similar, this Court opines that there cannot be any rationality in
fixing different market values for the subject acquired lands.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances and on
appreciation of the evidence available on record and for the
foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the
Reference Court has not committed any error in enhancing the
market value of the subject acquired lands. Therefore, this Appeal
is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
22. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:14.08.2024
dr
