Telangana High Court

K. Gangadhar Rao vs The Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 25 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.486 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This Appeal is filed by claimant Nos.3 and 4 aggrieved by the

order and decree dated 27.09.2007 passed in O.P.No.786 of 1998 on

the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter

referred to as "the Reference Court").

2. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel representing

Sri P.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel on record for the appellants,

and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for

respondent No.1. Perused the entire material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Government acquired

land to an extent of Acs.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.925, Ac.0.17 guntas in

Sy.No.497 and Ac.0.23 ½ guntas in Sy.No.199, belonging to the

claimants for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections

of families of Navipet Village through draft notification vide Gazette

Nos.86 and 87, dated 10.03.1994, and possession of the lands was AKS, J & LNA, J

taken on 11.06.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting

enquiry, passed Award, dated 16.01.1996, awarding compensation @

Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.22,000/- per acre for wet

lands.

4. Dissatisfied with the said Award, the claimants filed Protest

Petition and the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the

Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

for determination of just and reasonable compensation in respect of

the acquired lands.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/

claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were

marked. On behalf of the Reference Officer, R.W-1 was examined and

Ex.B-1-Award was marked.

6. The Reference Court, based on the oral and documentary

evidence on record, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer from Rs.12,000/- per acre to Rs.56,334/- per acre

for the acquired lands, vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2007.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal is filed by claimant

Nos.3 and 4.

AKS, J & LNA, J

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the

acquired lands are situated in a Village which is Mandal Head

Quarters and State High way connecting Maharashtra passes through

the village; that the said Village is the main shopping centre and

provides medical facility for more than 60 surrounding villages; that

there is a railway line from Kachiguda to Manmad, however, the

Reference Court has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid

aspects and fixed meager market value for the acquired lands. He

further contended that the Reference Court failed to take into account

the judgment of the High Court vide AS.No.2505 of 1988,

whereunder for the lands situated in the very same Village as that of

the acquired lands, the compensation was fixed @ Rs.32,500/- per

acre and therefore, seeks to enhance the market value of the acquired

lands.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals

contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the oral

and documentary evidence adduced before it and fixed the market

value of the acquired lands and therefore, the same needs no

interference by this Court.

AKS, J & LNA, J

9. In the present case, perusal of the Award discloses that the

Land Acquisition Officer has referred to as many as 150 sale

transactions between 1991 and 1994 for fixing the market value of the

acquired land and fixed the market value of the acquired land based on

Ex.A-8-sale deed dated 05.08.1993, whereunder the highest market

value was reflected. However, the property covered under Ex.A-8 is

RCC roofed and Mangalore tiled roof house, whereas the acquired

lands in the instant case are agricultural lands, therefore, the nature of

the acquired lands and the land covered under Ex.A-8 are different.

Therefore, the market value mentioned in Ex.A-8 cannot be taken as

basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands, as rightly held

by the Reference Court in the impugned order.

10. Coming to the sale transactions under Exs.A-6 and A-7, which

pertain to the years 1991 and 1992, respectively, the nature of the land

covered by the said sale deeds is different from the acquired lands,

i.e., those sale deeds were in respect of house sites. The acquired lands

are agricultural lands. Therefore, market value of the lands mentioned

in Exs.A-6 and A-7 is not comparable and cannot be taken as basis for

fixing the market value of the acquired lands. The Reference Court

has rightly declined to fix the market value of the acquired AKS, J & LNA, J

lands basing on Exs.A-6 and A-7, which needs no interference by this

Court.

11. Though the claimants relied upon Ex.A-3-Valuation Certificate

issued by the Gram Panchayat, the same cannot be considered since it

only reflects the notional value. The market valuation specified under

the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for registration of sale deeds or

agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area where the land is

situated can be taken into account for determination of market value.

In other words, the Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-

Registrar's Office concerned has to be taken into consideration, but

not the Valuation Certificate issued by the Panchayat which only

reflects the notional value. As such, the market value of the acquired

lands cannot be fixed on the basis of Ex.A-3.

12. The claimants have got marked certified copy of judgment

rendered in O.P.No.438 of 1983 as Ex.A-1 and the certified copy of

judgment rendered in A.S.No.2505 of 1988 as Ex.A-2. Admittedly,

the nature of lands in the said judgments and the acquired lands in the

present case is same and admittedly, both are situated in the same

Village i.e., Navipet Village. The Reference Court in its judgment in AKS, J & LNA, J

O.P.No.438 of 1983 has enhanced the market value of the acquired

land therein to Rs.5/- per square yard and on appeal, vide AS.No.2505

of 1988, the High Court has further enhanced the market value to

Rs.10/- per square yard and after deducting 1/3rd towards development

charges, fixed @ Rs.32,500/- per acre.

13. In the instant case, the lands were acquired for non-agricultural

purpose i.e., for providing house sites to weaker sections of society,

which otherwise means that the acquired lands, though agricultural

lands, have the potentiality to build houses thereon. However, the

Land Acquisition Officer ignored the same and erred in fixing the

market value of the acquired lands on acre basis.

14. In Ex.A-2-judgment, the High Court enhanced the rate of the

acquired land therein to Rs.10/- per square yard and after deducting

1/3rd therefrom towards developmental charges, fixed the market value

of the acquired lands therein @ Rs.32,500/- per acre. Since the village

and the nature of lands covered under the said judgment and the

acquired lands in the instant case are same, the market value reflected

therein can be taken as basis for fixing the market value of the

acquired lands. However, Ex.A-2-judgment was rendered with respect AKS, J & LNA, J

of the lands acquired in the year 1978 and in the instant case, the lands

were acquired in the year 1994 i.e., there is a gap of 16 years.

Accordingly, escalation of the market value of the land needs to be

calculated.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd

Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another 1, dealt with the issue

as to whether the escalation/increase of market value should be at a

cumulative rate or a flat rate and at para 16 of the judgment held as

under:-

"... It will thus be seen that even if the percentage of increase is constant, the application of a flat rate leads to different amounts being added depending upon the market value in the base year. On the other hand, the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs 10 or Rs 12.10 or Rs 13.31, the increase will lead to the same result. The logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate."

16. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case (cited supra), the escalation of

the market value has to be calculated cumulatively. But, the Reference

(2008) 14 SCC 745 AKS, J & LNA, J

Court erred in calculating escalation for the period of 16 years on flat

rate and the same needs to be modified accordingly.

17. Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the

cumulative escalation @ 10% per annum has to be calculated for

sixteen (16) years i.e., from the years 1978 to 1994, on Rs.32,500/- per

acre, which comes to Rs.1,49,328/- per acre and after deducting 1/3rd

therefrom towards developmental charges, it works out to Rs.99,552/-

per acre.