Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs Vangala Srinivas 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.605 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant and Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel 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,
Ramagundam, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.03.2013
passed in O.P.No.106 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands to an
extent of Acs.13.25 ½ guntas situated in the limits of Sulthanabad
Village and Mandal, Karimanagar District, belonging to the
respondents/claimants were acquired for laying of Pipe line under
Moulana Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project; that
the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
in the A.P. Gazette on 08.04.2010; that after following the
procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry,
the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.11 of 2011, dated
02.04.2011, granting compensation @ Rs.92,000/- per acre for dry
lands and @ Rs.1,04,000/- per acre for wet lands, along with
solatium and other statutory benefits.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as O.P.No.106 of 2011 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/
claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined
and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, treated both the categories of wet and dry lands as one
category and enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,00,000/- per acre
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
for the acquired lands. Challenging the said order, the present
appeal is filed.
7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for
Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court erred
in granting uniform compensation for both wet and dry acquired
lands; that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that
the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the sale deeds for three
years preceding the date of 4(1) notification for fixing the market
value of the acquired lands and erred in placing reliance on Exs.A-
1 and A-2-registered sale deeds, which pertain to lands situated far
away from the acquired lands while determining the market value
of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court erred in observing
that the acquired lands are in residential locality and fetches higher
compensation and thereby, the Reference Court erred in enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as
such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate
to the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into
consideration the sale transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2, rightly
enhanced the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the
impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
9. Before the Reference Court, the respondents-claimants have
marked Exs.A-1 and A-2-sale deeds, whereunder the lands covered
therein were sold @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. P.Ws.1 and 2 were
also examined who reiterated the contents of Exs.A-1 and A-2.
Though P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing
contrary was elicited. P.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice stated that the
acquired lands are abutting Rajiv State Highway. Even R.W-1
admitted that the acquired lands are abutting Rajiv State Highway
leading from Ramagundam to Hyderabad. As such, the location of
the subject acquired lands and their potentiality to be used for
house sites, though they are agricultural lands at the time of
acquisition, are well established by the respondents-claimants.
10. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that the respondents-
claimants have established that the acquired lands are having high
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
potentiality for house sites as they are abutting Rajiv State
Highway and as such, they fetch higher market value.
11. A reading of the impugned order shows that the Reference
Court has scrupulously and minutely gone through the sale deeds
referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B-1-Award and
after analyzing the same, found that the Land Acquisition Officer
has rejected almost all the sale transactions of Sulthanabad town on
the ground that they do not represent the true and real market value
for fixation of compensation for the acquired lands and further, the
Land Acquisition Officer has followed a pick and choose method
while adopting the sale transactions. The Reference Court further
observed that Ex.B-1-Award itself shows that the lands near the
acquired lands, i.e., within a distance of less than ½ km were sold
for more than Rs.16,00,000/- per acre.
12. Now, for determining the just compensation for the acquired
lands, it is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Pohu and another 1 and
(1984) 86 Petitioner & H LR540
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
State of Madras Vs. P.Seethamma and another 2, wherein it is
held that while determining the compensation for the acquired
lands on the basis of sale deeds of similar lands, the sale deeds
fetching highest value prevailing in the market at the relevant time
should be preferred.
13. In the instant case, the respondents-claimants have
succeeded in proving that Exs.A-1 and A-2-sale deeds represent the
highest value prevailing in the market at the time of acquisition of
the subject lands by issuance of draft notification under Section
4(1) of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the above cited judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the market value of the acquired
lands has to be fixed on the basis of Exs.A-1 and A-2, whereunder
the lands are sold @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. Though the
Reference Court considered Ex.A-1 as a representative sale for
fixing the compensation for the acquired lands, without assigning
any reason, has fixed the market value of the acquired lands @
Rs.12,00,000/- per acre.
AIR 1972 Madras 170
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
14. Nonetheless, since the present Appeal is preferred by the
Land Acquisition Officer against the impugned order of the
Reference Court and no Cross-Objections are filed by the
respondents-claimants in this Appeal, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
16. As a sequel, interim order dated 04.11.2013 shall stand
vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:28.08.2024
dr
