Telangana High Court
Dornala Malla Reddy, vs The Special Deputy Collector/Lao. on 28 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.75 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals
appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the claimants challenging the
order and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla (hereinafter referred to
as "the Reference Court').
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the lands to an
extent of Acs.6.30 guntas situated in Gangadhara Village,
Karimnagar District, belonging to the appellants-claimants, were
acquired for formation of new broad gauge single Railway line
from Karimnagar to Jagtial passing through under the limits of
Gangadhara Village; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act was published in Gazette on 08.07.2002; that possession of
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
the acquired lands was taken on 07.11.2002; and that the Land
Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award
No.6 of 2004, dated 15.03.2005, fixing the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.60,000/- per acre, for both wet and dry
agricultural lands.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted in the
Award, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18
of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009 on
the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/
claimants, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined
and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked.
6. The Reference Court on appreciation of the evidence on
record, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre from
Rs.60,000/- per acre for the acquired lands, apart from granting
separate and different compensation for the tube wells and
pipelines existing in the acquired lands to each of the claimants and
also granted compensation for the standing crop and trees existing
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
in the acquired lands, along with other statutory benefits under the
Act. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by
the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that
the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the Land
Acquisition Officer has picked up irrelevant and undervalued sale
deeds and adopted them for fixing the market value of the acquired
lands; that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the market
value of the acquired land taking into consideration the fact that the
acquired lands are situated in the limits of Gangadhara Mandal
Head Quarters and in the vicinity of the acquired lands, there are
main industrial, educational, residential and commercial
developments; that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the
Reference Court have erred in taking note that by the time of
acquisition of the subject lands, the same were converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and are being sold as house
sites; and that the Reference Court while determining the
compensation for the tube wells and pipe lines in the acquired
lands of the appellants-claimants, failed to consider Ex.P-4-
Estimation prepared by P.W-3 and awarded a meager sum as
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
compensation; and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Administrator General
of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi 1, which was followed by
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in The Land
Acquisition Officer, Sub Collector, Vijayawada Vs. Shaik
Bhaileem and others 2.
9. In Administrator General of West Bengal's case (1st cited
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"...The principle requires that prices fetched for small
developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large
extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be
valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building
purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the
land would be good selling propositions and that valuation
on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could
with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small,
laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable
small sites in the area at or about the time of the
notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary
deductions for the extent of land required for the formation
(1988) 2 SCC 150
AIR 1996 AP 14
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of
development of the sites by laying out roads, drains,
sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the
outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the
price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made..."
10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals
contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and following the propositions laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, rightly determined
the market value of the acquired lands and the compensation
granted by the Reference Court towards tube wells, pipe lines,
standing crop and trees in the acquired lands is just and reasonable
and therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
11. A perusal of the Ex.B-1-Award goes to show that the Land
Acquisition Officer has stated therein that during the enquiry, it is
revealed that the prevailing market value of the irrigation lands
situated in Gangadhara Village & Mandal Headquarters are ranging
from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. It is further stated that
however, on mutual understanding between the vendors and
vendees, the registrations were made at the rates above the basic
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
value but below the prevailing market value and fixed the market
value of the acquired lands @ Rs.60,000/- per acre.
12. In support of their claim for enhancement, the appellants-
claimants relied upon Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds. However, the
said documents pertain to sale of house sites situated in
Sy.No.1004/A of Gangadhara Village on yardage basis. P.W-2 who
is one of the vendors of Exs.P-1 and P-2 deposed that the distance
between the subject acquired lands and the State Highway is below
1,000 meters and that there are colleges, industries and other
shopping complexes within the vicinity of the acquired lands and
as such, the acquired lands are also useful for house sites and other
commercial establishments.
13. On behalf of the Referring Officer, apart from examining
the Land Acquisition Officer as R.W-1, Exs.R-2 to R-4-sale deeds
were marked. R.W-1 deposed that while passing the Award, the
value mentioned in Exs.R-2 to R-4 was adopted since the lands
covered thereunder are nearer and identical to the subject acquired
lands.
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
14. On a thorough scrutiny of Exs.P-1 and P-2 and Exs.R-2 to
R-4, the Reference Court found that none of the documents marked
on behalf of the claimants or the Referring Officer pertain to the
survey number of the subject acquired lands, though they relate to
Gangadhara Village. However, the Reference Court proceeded to
rely upon Exs.R-2 to R-4 as they pertain to sale of agricultural
lands for the period very near to the date of issuance of draft
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and taking of possession
of the acquired lands. The subject acquired lands are agricultural
lands. The appellants-claimants except taking a plea that the
subject acquired lands were converted from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes, did not choose to adduce any evidence to
that effect before the Reference Court. In such an event, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly
relied upon Exs.R-2 to R-4 for the purpose of determining the
market value of the acquired lands, which needs no interference by
this Court.
15. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that the acquired
lands are red chelka soil lands rich in fertility, utility and are
double crop dry wet lands and are cultivated with water through
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
electric motor pump sets. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.B-1-
Award also, the Land Acquisition Officer has noted that there were
irrigation wells and pipe lines existing in the acquired lands.
Therefore, the existence of tube wells and pipelines is established
by the appellants-claimants.
16. As regards the compensation for the tube wells and
pipelines in the subject acquired lands, the appellants-claimants
examined a retired Municipal Engineer as P.W-3 and got marked
Ex.P-4-Estimates prepared by him. P.W-3 deposed that the
pipelines and agricultural wells existing in the acquired lands are
worth more than Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of each of the claimants.
In this regard, it is relevant to note that R.W-1 admitted that they
have not adopted capitalization method in acquisition of the subject
lands.
17. When Ex.P-4-Estimates of the valuation of the tube wells
and pipelines in the acquired lands were marked through P.W-3,
this Court sees no justification on the part of the Reference Court to
simply ignore the same and confirm the amounts awarded as
compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, without assigning
any reasons therefor.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
18. Since, P.W-3 who prepared the estimates of the tube wells
and pipe lines and deposed before the Reference Court, is a retired
Municipal Engineer, his evidence and estimates cannot be brushed
aside.
19. Here, it is apt to mention that in the instant case, there was
no capitalization of the value of land and structures on it and
therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRs and others Vs.
State of U.P. 3, wherein it is held that when there is no
capitalization of the value of land and structure by the Land
Acquisition Officer in his Award, the claimants are entitled to
separate compensation for land, tube well and structure, this Court
deems it justifiable to hold that in the instant case, the appellants-
claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the
tube wells and pipelines that existed in the acquired lands.
20. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, particularly, Ex.P-4-Estimates prepared by P.W-3, this Court
is of the view that ends of justice would be met if reasonable
(2003) 10 SCC 525
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
escalation of compensation is given for the tube wells and pipelines
present in the acquired lands of the appellants-claimants.
Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the
compensation for the tube wells and pipelines that existed in the
acquired lands by 30% over and above the compensation awarded
by the Reference Court to each of the appellants-claimants.
21. The Appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent
indicated above. The remaining portion of the impugned order of
the Reference Court remains unaltered. No order as to costs.
22. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:28.08.2024
dr
