Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Busa Lachmanna on 23 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.636 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none appears 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,
Nizamabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 06.09.2012
passed in L.A.O.P.No.363 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional
District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Reference Court').
3. The brief facts of the case are that on requisition made by
the Commandant, VII Battalion, APSP Camp, Dichpally, the land
of the respondents/claimants to an extent of Acs.5.33 guntas in
Sy.No.434/1 of Dichpally, Nizamabad District, was acquired for
construction of Police Quarters; that draft notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.08.1999; and that the
2 AKS,J & LNA, J
Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary award
enquiry, passed an Award, dated 22.03.2001, fixing market value
of the acquired land @ Rs.28,416/- per acre.
4. The respondents/claimants received the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as L.A.O.P.No.363 of 2002 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-3 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was
examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. The Reference Court by the impugned order enhanced the
market value of the acquired land @ Rs.30.40 paise per square
yard, 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.
3 AKS,J & LNA, J
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference
Court erred in not considering the case of the Land Acquisition
Officer in a correct perspective; that Reference Court erred in
relying on the judgment rendered by the High Court in AS.No.1688
of 2000 and the Cross-Objections therein, as the land covered by
the said judgment is different from the subject acquired land; and
further, the Reference Court having rejected Exs.A-1 and A-2-sale
deeds for taking as comparable sale deeds, ought not to have
enhanced the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.30.40 paise
per square yard; and thus, the Reference Court erred in enhancing
the market value of the acquired lands exorbitantly and therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. In order to assess the market value of the acquired land, the
Court has to take into account several factors like its location,
potentiality, its proximity to the road or Highways, as the case may
be, the development in the neighbouring locality, the extent of the
acquired land, the positive factors and negative factors related to
4 AKS,J & LNA, J
the above aspects, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat 1.
10. In instant case, admittedly, an extent of Acs.5.33 guntas of
land belonging to the respondents/claimants has been acquired.
Before the Reference Court, the respondents/claimants relied upon
Exs.A-1 to A-3 in support of their claim for enhancement of
compensation for the acquired land.
11. In the impugned order, the Reference Court observed that
Exs.A-1 and A-2 pertain to small extents of land i.e., 207.77 and
111.11 square yards, respectively, situated at Nadpally Village.
Admittedly, Nadpally Village and Dichpally are neighbouring
villages and are situated about 16 kms from Nizamabad. But, this
Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the acquired land in the
instant case is a large chunk of land i.e., Acs.5.33 guntas, when
compared to the land covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2. Therefore,
the Reference Court has relied upon a catena of judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector Vs. Kurra
Sambasiva Rao2, State of J & K Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani 3,
(2005) 4 SCC 789
AIR 1997 SC 2625
AIR 1998 SC 2470
5 AKS,J & LNA, J
Bhim Singh Vs. State of Harayana 4 and Atma Singh (dead)
through LRs Vs. State of Haryana 5, wherein it is held that method
of relying on price of small plots in order to fix value of large
extents is not proper and rightly discarded Exs.A-1 and A-2 as
comparable sales for the purpose of determining the market value
of the acquired land.
12. As regards Ex.A-3-copy of judgment dated 27.04.2006
passed by the Reference Court in OP.No.17 of 1997, wherein the
market value of the subject lands therein situated at Kanteshwar
Village, Nizamabad, which were acquired for construction of
houses, was fixed @ Rs.188/- per square yard, it is to be seen that
the distance of Kanteshwar and Dichpally from Nizamabad town is
considerable, i.e., Kanteshwar Village is, in fact, a locality in
Nizamabad town, whereas Dichpally is at a distance of 17 kms
from Nizamabad. Therefore, there cannot be any similarity in the
lands located in both the said places either in respect of market
value or potentiality. As such, Ex.A-3 cannot be considered for
determining the market value of the subject acquired land.
(2003) 10 SCC 529
(2008) 2 SCC 568
6 AKS,J & LNA, J
13. Hence, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the Reference Court has rightly discarded Exs.A-1 to A-3
for fixing the market value of the acquired land.
14. Indeed, Nadpally and Dichpally are neighbouring villages.
The very purpose of acquisition of subject land for construction of
police quarters shows that it has got potentiality or capacity for
changing or developing into residential purpose, therefore, the
market value of the acquired land has to be necessarily fixed on
yardage basis, as rightly done by the Reference Court in the
impugned order.
15. In the absence of any relevant evidence, either oral or
documentary, adduced on behalf of either of the parties, the
Reference Court has relied upon the judgment, dated 12.08.2008,
rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Land
Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nizamabad Vs.
Balla Ganganna @ Gangaram, in AS.No.1688 of 2000, wherein
for the lands acquired in Nadpally and Dichpally Villages in the
year 1990 for construction of 220 KV Sub-station, the market value
was fixed @ Rs.16/- per square yard. Since the matter was not
carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same has attained finality.
7 AKS,J & LNA, J
Therefore, this Court opines that the Reference Court has rightly
relied upon the said judgment in determining the market value of
the subject acquired land. As the subject lands were acquired in the
year 1999, for the time gap of nine (9) years, 10% escalation has to
be added, which was rightly done by the Reference Court and the
market value of the acquired land was fixed @ Rs.30.40 paise per
square yard.
16. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that following the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, as referred supra,
the Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value of the
acquired land, which necessitates no interference by this Court.
17. For the foregoing discussing, this Court is of the considered
view that the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
18. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:23.08.2024
dr
