Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector La vs B.Ratnagiri Rao on 5 July, 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.52 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
This Appeal is filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition), Ranga Reddy District, aggrieved by the order and decree
dated 12.06.2015 passed in L.A.O.P.No.764 of 2003 on the file of the
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989-cum-VII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for brevity,
hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court"), whereby the
compensation for 'A' and 'B' category of acquired lands was
enhanced from Rs.80,000/- and Rs.60,000/- per acre, respectively, to
Rs.1,80,000/- per acre along with other benefits.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant. As conventional means of service of notice upon the
respondent failed, substituted service of notice by way of paper
publication was ordered and in spite of that, the respondent failed to
AKS, J & LNA, J
enter appearance on his behalf. Perused the entire material available
on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the requisition
proposals submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for
acquisition of lands at Shamshabad to set up Airport with international
standards, draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued
on 21.01.2000 and the same was published in Andhra Prabha Telugu
daily newspaper on 22.03.2000 and The Hindu English daily
newspaper on 23.03.2000 and the draft declaration under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') was published
in AP Gazette vide No.33, dated 14.10.2000 and also in The Hindu
English daily newspaper and Andhra Prabha Telugu daily newspaper
on 19.11.2000 and 22.11.2000 respectively. The Land Acquisition
Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed an Award,
dated 06.11.2002, fixing the market value of the acquired lands i.e.,
Rs.80,000/- per acre for 'A' category lands, Rs.60,000/- per acre for
'B' category lands and Rs.50,000/- per acre for 'C' category lands.
4. Dissatisfied with the said Award, the respondents/claimants
filed an application before the Authority under Section 64 of the Act
AKS, J & LNA, J
seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired
lands.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the
respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to
A-9 were marked. On behalf of the Reference Officer, R.W-1 was
examined and no documents were marked.
6. The principal contention raised by the learned Government
Pleader for Appeals is that the Reference Court erred in taking
escalation of market value @ 20% per annum and accordingly,
awarded the compensation for the acquired lands, which is on a very
higher side, and therefore, the same needs to be interfered with by this
Court.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals confined his
submissions to the extent of considering 20% escalation on the market
value by the Reference Court, therefore, the short issue involved in
this Appeal is whether the escalation considered by the Reference
Court is in accordance with law.
AKS, J & LNA, J
8. Admittedly, the acquired lands in the present case are
categorized under 'B' category and the Reference Court enhanced the
market value of the acquired lands from Rs.60,000/- per acre to
Rs.1,80,000/- per acre.
9. The issue as regards considering the escalation/increase of
market value of the lands was elaborately dealt with and analyzed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd Vs.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another 1, wherein at paras 13 and
14 of the judgment it was observed as under:-
"13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four
factors situation of the land, nature of development in
surrounding area, availability of land for development in
the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural
areas unless there is any prospect of development in the
vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and
gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other
hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development
is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there
is construction activity all around, the escalation in market
price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas.
In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and
high demand for land, the escalations in prices have
(2008) 14 SCC 745
AKS, J & LNA, J
touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the
nineties.
14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where
there was no chance of any development and hardly any
buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at
a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a
significant difference in increases in market value of lands
in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of
lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market
value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per
annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at
best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per
annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the
nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific
evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are
special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or
any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in
prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon
the same."
10. From a reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it is evident that the increase/escalation of land price
has to be assessed based on four factors, viz., location of the land,
nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for
development in the area and the demand for land in the area; and by
taking so, we find that there is significant difference in increase of
AKS, J & LNA, J
market value of lands in urban/semi urban areas compared to increase
in the rural areas.
11. In the instant case, admittedly, the acquired lands are in
Shamshabad area and the Reference Court has observed that they are
dry lands and as such, rain fed crops, some seasonal vegetables are
raised therein. It is also apt to note that in the Award, the Land
Acquisition Officer clearly noted the existence of Poultry shed, feed
plant, ACC House, seed go-down and water tank in the acquired lands
apart from the vegetation. Therefore, this Court is of considered
opinion that the acquired lands fall under rural areas, for which
escalation of market value should be taken accordingly. Therefore, in
the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel's case (cited supra), this Court finds it appropriate
and reasonable to take escalation of market value @ 10% per annum
on the value of land as mentioned in Ex.A-1-sale deed, which is of the
year 1989.
12. As regards granting of solatium @ 100%, additional amount
@ 12% per annum and also multiplication factor on the total market
value by the Authority, the same are granted in accordance with
AKS, J & LNA, J
Sections 30, 30(2) and Schedule-I of the Act, respectively, therefore,
the respondent/claimant is entitled to the same. Hence, the
said benefits granted to the respondent/claimants by the Reference
Court need no interference by this Court.
13. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order of the Authority needs to be
modified only to the extent of taking escalation of market value of the
land.
14. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
order of the Reference Court insofar as adding escalation @ 20% per
year for the years from 1990 to 2000, while determining the market
value of the acquired lands, is modified to that of cumulative
escalation @ 10% per annum for the years from 1990 to 2000. There
shall be no order as to costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:05.07.2024
dr
