Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Md. Nidyaduddin And 10 Others on 22 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.68 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri B.Sudhakar
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
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.01.2018 passed in
LAO.P.No.25 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the subject lands
totally admeasuring Acs.39.20 guntas situated in different survey
numbers in the limits of Pedda Cheruvu, Peddathimmapur Village,
Dahegaon Mandal, Asifabad District, belonging to the
respondents/claimants, were acquired for the purpose of formation
of Peddacheruvu; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
Act was published on 10.11.2009; that Draft Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was published on 11.11.2009; that after
following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after
conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award,
vide proceedings No.B/1960/1985, dated 08.04.2011, fixing market
value of the acquired lands @ Rs.42,500/- per acre.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the 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.25 of 2011 on the file
of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants,
R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. On
behalf of the Referring Officer, PW-1 was examined and
Ex.A-1-Award was marked. Exc.C-1-Advocate Commissioner's
report was also marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence, both
oral and documentary, available on record, enhanced the
compensation from Rs.42,500/- per acre to Rs.1,75,000/- per acre
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
for the acquired lands, apart from granting all other statutory
benefits under the Act to the appellants/claimants. Challenging the
said order, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the
Land Acquisition Officer has considered the time lag between the
date of taking possession of subject land and awarding of
compensation and granted fair and reasonable compensation; that
the Reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that the
documents marked on behalf of the claimants are pertaining to
smaller extents of land and that the reasoning given by the
Reference Court in adopting the said sale deeds is not cogent or
tangible; and that therefore, the impugned order of the Reference
Court is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
contended that the Reference Court has appreciated the entire
material placed before it and has rightly enhanced the market value
of the subject acquired lands as was fixed by the Land Acquisition
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
Officer and therefore, this Appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable
to be dismissed.
9. The instant case has a chequered history. The subject lands
of the claimants were taken over by the requisitioning department
i.e., Irrigation Department on 10.08.1971, however, as
compensation was not paid, the owners of the acquired lands filed
W.P.No.4769 of 1997 before the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad and the said Writ Petition was disposed of
on 13.06.1997. Seeking to review the said order, the Government
filed Review Petition in W.P.No.4769 of 1997 and the same was
dismissed. Subsequently, the matter was unsuccessfully carried in
Writ Appeal before Division Bench of this Court and the Special
Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stood
dismissed, vide orders dated 05.11.2008. Thereafter, the present
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on
10.11.2009. Though 4(1) notification was issued, neither an Award
was passed nor compensation was paid. Hence, the claimants filed
Contempt Case No.524 of 2011. Subsequently, the Land
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
Acquisition Officer passed Award dated 08.04.2011 fixing the
market value of the acquired land @ Rs.42,500/- per acre.
10. In order to assess and fix the market value of the subject
acquired land, this Court has thoroughly perused the entire
evidence available on record.
11. In order to substantiate their claim for fixation of higher
market value, the claimants have got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4 before
the Reference Court. Ex.B-1 is the registered sale deed, dated
03.08.2009, executed in respect of an extent of Ac.0.33 guntas of
land in Sy.No.15/E of Peddathimmapur Village for consideration
of Rs.83,000/- per acre, which works out to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
Ex.B-2 is the registered sale deed, dated 30.04.2008, executed in
respect of two properties mentioned therein i.e., Schedule-A to an
extent of Acs.2.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 of Peddathimmapur
Village for consideration of Rs.30,000/- per acre, which works out
to Rs.15,000/- per acre and Schedule-B to an extent of Ac.0.10
guntas in Sy.No.22 of Peddathimmapur Village for consideration
of Rs.4,000/-, which works out to Rs.15,000/- per acre.
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
12. Thus, out of the two sale deeds-Ex.B-1 and B-2, Ex.B-1-sale
deeds reflects the highest market value of land, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/-
per acre. But, in the impugned order, the Reference Court
committed error in noting the market value of the land reflected in
Ex.B-2-sale deed as Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Even the Land
Acquisition Officer in Ex.A-1-Award has erroneously mentioned
that for the land covered under Ex.B-2-sale deed bearing document
No.1275 of 2008, the market value is Rs.1,36,000/- per acre. In
fact, both the Reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer
have committed serious error in examining the document under
Ex.B-2 and have wrongly mentioned the market value reflected
therein, without considering the fact that there are two schedules in
Ex.B-2.
13. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.B-1-Award, while
mentioning the sale statistics for a period of three years prior to
4(1) notification i.e., for the years 2007 to 2009, the Land
Acquisition Officer has referred to 12 sale transactions pertaining
to the years 2007 and 2008, but the sale transactions for the year
2009 was mentioned as NIL. This observation of the Land
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
Acquisition Officer in Ex.A-1-Award is incorrect in the light of
Ex.B-1-sale deed, dated 03.08.2009 which pertains to
Peddathimmapur Village. This shows the selective approach on the
part of the Land Acquisition Officer while referring to the sale
deeds pertaining to the relevant period. Therefore, this Court holds
that the Land Acquisition Officer has not fixed the market value of
the subject acquired land basing on the sale deeds pertaining to the
relevant period.
14. Further, it is relevant to note that the vendor of Ex.B-1-sale
deed was examined as R.W-2 and he deposed that though the
market value of the land under Ex.B-1 is shown as Rs.1,00,000/-
per acre, he has registered the land in favour of Chuchukayala
Durgaiah (vendee) on receiving total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-
and delivered possession of the said land. He further deposed that
in order to avoid stamp duty under Registration Act, the value of
the property under Ex.B-1 is shown as Rs.83,000/-. But, this
evidence of R.W-2 which is contrary to the document cannot be
accepted and considered. Therefore, the market value reflected in
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
Ex.B-1-sale deed has to be necessarily taken as true and prevailing
market value at the relevant period.
15. Though the genuineness of Ex.B-1 and B-2 is proved, as
Ex.B-1-sale deed reflects the highest market value, the same has to
be taken as exemplar sale deed in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of
Punjab 1. Accordingly, the market value of the subject acquired
land is fixed @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
16. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that
the Reference Court erred in granting interest on the market value
from the year 1971 onwards and therefore, he sought intervention
of this Court regarding that aspect also.
17. A perusal of record goes to show that during the pendency
of the proceedings, in W.A.No.1506 of 1997, Advocate-
Commissioner was appointed to enquire about the actual use of the
subject acquired land and to submit a report. In pursuance thereof,
the Advocate-Commissioner submitted his report-Ex.C-1, dated
18.01.1998, wherein he has mentioned that on recording the
(2012) 5 SCC 432
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
statements of neighbouring land owners, on inspection of the
subject land, etc., he came to conclusion that the subject acquired
lands were submerged and that the owners of the said lands are not
cultivating the said lands for more than 20-25 years. In the light of
the said report, the High Court dismissed W.A.No.1506 of 1997
directing the Government to pay compensation to the claimants
from the year 1971. The matter was unsuccessfully challenged by
the Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the
aspect of granting interest on the market value is no longer
resintegra. Hence, the contention of the learned Government
Pleader that the Reference Court committed error in granting
interest on the enhanced market value from the year 1971 is
untenable.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that this Appeal is liable to be allowed.
19. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed and the impugned
order of the Reference Court is set aside, modifying the market
value of the subject acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as
against Rs.1,75,000/- per acre fixed by the Reference Court. It is
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
needless to say that the claimants are entitled to all the benefits
under the Act i.e., interest, solatium and additional market value on
the modified market value. Further, in the light of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh v. LAO 2
and Tahera Khotoon v. LAO 3, the claimants are entitled to
additional interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum from the
date of their dispossession from the acquired lands in the year 1971
till the date of issuance of 4(1) notification on 10.11.2009.
20. As a sequel, interim order dated 11.03.2020 passed in
LAASMP.No.68 of 2019 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous
Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:22.11.2024
dr
(2016) 12 SCC 412
(2014) 13 SCC 613
