Telangana High Court
Boini Muthaiah And 88 Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 8 November, 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.89 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard Sri Kandi Ramachandra 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 aggrieved by
the order and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed in LAO.P.No.18 of
2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar
(hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands in
total admeasuring Acs.27.36 guntas in different Survey numbers of
Renikunta Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimanagar District,
belonging to the appellants/claimants were acquired for the purpose
of laying of pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Sujala
Sravanthi Project at Renikunta Village; that Draft Notification
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on
06.07.2010; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
published in A.P. Gazette on 07.07.2010; that amended Draft
notification and draft declaration in respect of Sy.No.413 were
approved on 19.11.2010; that after following the procedure
prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land
Acquisition Officer passed Award No.14/2011-12, dated
28.09.2013, fixing market value of the acquired lands @
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants/claimants sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to
the competent Civil Court and was numbered as LAOP.No.18 of
2014 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/
claimants, P.Ws-1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined
and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence, both
oral and documentary, available on record, enhanced the
compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.1,57,300/- per acre
for the acquired lands, apart from granting all other benefits under
the Act to the appellants/claimants. Not satisfied with the
enhancement made by the Reference Court in the impugned order,
the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that
the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the acquired
lands are abutting Rajiv Rahadari, a State Highway, and are
surrounded by number of residential buildings, colleges, schools,
etc., and hence, the acquired lands are highly potential for house
sites; that though there are several registered sale deeds of higher
market value in respect of lands in the vicinity of the acquired
lands, the same were not taken into consideration by the Reference
Court and the Reference Court has erred in granting meager
compensation by deducting 75% of the value reflected in Ex.P-1-
sale deed; and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals
appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended
that the Reference Court has taken into account the overall scenario
of the acquired lands, i.e., with regard to location, nearness to
Mandal Headquarters, its potentiality, etc., and relying upon
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rightly fixed the
market value of the acquired lands, which needs no interference by
his Court.
9. The only issue that falls for consideration in this Appeal is
whether the Reference Court was justified in deducting 75% of the
amount reflected in Ex.P-1-sale deed and fixing the market value
of the acquired lands; and if so, what is the just and reasonable
market value of the acquired lands which the appellants/claimants
are entitled to.
10. In the instant case, the claimants have got marked Ex.P-1-
sale deed, dated 22.01.2008, whereunder an extent of 816.75
square yards of land in Sy.No.16/G was sold @ Rs.130/- per
square yard and Ex.P-2-sale deed, dated 22.01.2008, whereunder
an extent of 162 square yards of land in Sy.No.615 was sold @
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
Rs.125/- per square yard. There is no dispute that under the said
sale deeds, the land was sold for house sites on yardage basis,
whereas the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands.
11. The Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand vs. Union
of India & Anr 1 and Kapil Mehra & Ors Vs. Union Of India &
Anr 2 and while adopting Ex.A-1-sale deed for fixation of market
value of the acquired lands, deducted 75% of the value reflected in
the said sale deed and fixed the market value of the acquired lands
@ Rs.1,57,300/- per acre.
12. In Lal Chand's case (1st cited supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"The percentage of "deduction for development" to be
made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for
development), with reference to the sale price of small
developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price
of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon
the nature of development of the layout in which the
exemplar plots are situated."
(2009) 15 SCC 769
(2015) 2 SCC 262
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
13. In Kapil Mehra's case (2nd cited supra), which is also
referred to and relied upon by the Reference Court in the impugned
order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area,
and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction
for development may be as much less, that is, as little as
25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already
be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above
are tentative standards and subject to proof to the
contrary.
......While making one third deduction towards
development cost, the learned single Judge did not keep
in view the two essential components of deduction for
development. Deduction for development consists of two
components:- firstly, appropriate deduction to be made
towards the area required to be utilized for roads,
drains and common facilities like parks etc.; secondly,
further deduction to be made towards the cost of
development, that is cost of levelling the land, cost of
laying roads and drains, erection of electrical poles and
water lines etc. For deduction of development towards
land and development charges, the nature of
development, conditions and nature of the land, the land
required to be set apart under the Building Rules for
roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water supply etc. and
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
other relevant circumstances involved are required to be
considered."
14. In the aforesaid case, the acquisition of the land was for
development of Vasant Kunj under the planned development
scheme of Delhi. In the instant case, the acquired lands are for
laying of pipeline under an irrigation project namely Moulana
Abdul Kalam Sujala Sravanthi Project, therefore, the facts of the
case, the purpose of acquisition, etc., in the said case are entirely
different to that of the present case and therefore, the rate of
deductions mentioned in the aforesaid judgment does not apply to
the case on hand. The Reference Court has committed error in
applying the deductions mentioned in the aforesaid judgment to the
present case.
15. It is also relevant to note that in Kapil Mehra's case (cited
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that
the percentages mentioned in the said judgment are tentative
standards and subject to proof to the contrary.
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
16. In the instant case, the lands are acquired for an irrigation
project, therefore, the question of deduction towards development
charges does not arise. However, under Ex.P-1-sale deed which is
taken as an exemplar sale deed, an extent of 816.75 square yards
was sold @ Rs.130/- per square yard, which works out to
Rs.5,08,201/- per acre. The extent covered under Ex.P-1-sale deed
is very small when compared to acquisition of large chunk of
Acs.27.36 guntas of land. Moreover, the land sold under Ex.P-1-
sale deed is for house site, which means that it is a developed area.
Hence, while taking Ex.P-1-sale deed as a representative sale deed
for fixing the market value of the acquired lands, it is appropriate
to deduct 1/3rd of the value reflected therein, which works out to
Rs.3,38,801/- per acre.
17. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the
impugned order passed by the Reference Court and the market
value of the subject acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.3,38,801/- per
acre. It is needless to say that the appellants/claimants are entitled
to all the statutory benefits like solatium, additional market value,
etc., under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
18. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:08.10.2024
dr
