Telangana High Court
Land Acquisition Officer, R.R.Dist vs Aluri Dhananjaiah, R.R.Dist 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.533 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
This Appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved
by the order and decree dated 06.07.2015 passed in L.A.O.P.No.25 of
2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court").
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for
the appellant. None appears for the respondent. Perused the entire
material available on record.
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the Government
acquired land to an extent of Acs.9.26 guntas in Sy.No.52/2 of Nalla
Cheruvu, belonging to the respondent/claimant, for the purpose of
formation of percolation tank at Nalla cheruvu through draft
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short 'the Act'), dated 25.12.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer,
taking into consideration the sale transactions of three years preceding
the date of draft notification, passed Award, dated 11.03.1998,
awarding compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per acre.
4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by
the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent/claimant filed
AKS, J & LNA, J
W.P.No.8957 of 2006 before the High Court and the said case was
disposed of, vide order dated 29.10.2009, with a direction to the Land
Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to competent civil Court under
Section 18 of the Act for determination of just and reasonable
compensation in respect of the acquired land. In pursuance of the said
directions, the matter was referred to Reference Court and the same
was numbered as LAOP.No.25 of 2010.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellant-
Reference Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.R-1-Award was
marked and on behalf of the respondent-claimant, P.W.1 was
examined and Ex.P-1 was marked.
6. The Reference Court vide order dated 06.07.2015 enhanced
the compensation of the subject acquired land from Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.36,000/- per acre apart from granting all statutory benefits.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the
Reference Court has erred in relying on Ex.P-1, which is a self-created
document, in fixing the market value of the acquired land; that the
Reference Court having held that there is no single document filed by
the respondent-claimant in support of his version, ought not to have
enhanced the market value of the acquired lands; and therefore, he
AKS, J & LNA, J
prayed the Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the
Reference Court.
8. The Reference Court has considered Ex.P-1-sale deed, dated
18.11.1988 vide document No.3758/1988 as a basis for enhancement
of market value of the acquired land. Ex.P-1-sale deed was executed
by the claimant himself to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.52, of
which the subject acquired land also forms part thereof, for a sale
consideration of Rs.18,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per
acre. Though Ex.P-1-sale deed was executed about six years prior to
the date of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the
Reference Court has considered the same since the said sale deed
pertains to the very same survey number.
9. The Land Acquisition Officer filed the present Appeal mainly
contending that Ex.P-1 appears to be self-created document by the
respondent-claimant, therefore, the Reference Court ought not to have
relied upon the said document and enhanced the compensation fixed
by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per
acre for the acquired land.
10. It is relevant to note that Ex.P-1-sale deed was executed much
prior to issuance of draft notification i.e., about six years prior to the
AKS, J & LNA, J
date of draft notification. Further, by any stretch of imagination, it
cannot be said that the claimant can visualize, foresee or anticipate
acquisition of land in future date and executed Ex.P-1-sale deed. In
such an event, the genuineness of Ex.P-1-sale deed cannot be doubted.
Therefore, the contention put forth by the appellant that Ex.P-1-sale
deed appears to be self-created document by the respondent-claimant
is untenable.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Reference Court has rightly considered Ex.P-1-sale deed for
fixing the market value of the acquired land and enhanced the
compensation for the acquired land. Therefore, this Court does not
find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the
Reference Court.
12. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:25.07.2024
dr
