Telangana High Court
Land Acquisition Officer And vs K. Ravinder Reddy on 4 October, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Cross-Objections(SR).No.5363 of 2008
In/and
LAAS.No.112 of 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Chinthalaphani
Avani 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-
cum-Revenue Divisional Office, Peddapalli, aggrieved by the order
and decree dated 29.11.2004 passed in O.P.No.57 of 2003 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, whereby the
compensation for the lands acquired in Vennampalli Village was
enhanced from Rs.23,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/-per acre.
3. The Cross-Objections are filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court
by the impugned order.
4. The undisputed facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an
extent of Acs.5.00 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.760 of
2 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
Vennampalli Village, Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District,
belonging to the claimants was acquired for the purpose of
providing house sites to weaker sections; that Draft Notification
under Section-4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on
12.04.2001; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting
necessary award enquiry, passed an Award, dated 15.01.2003,
fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.23,000/- per
acre and granted other benefits to the claimants.
5. Not being satisfied with the said Award, the claimant
therein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same
was referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as
O.P.No.57 of 2003 on the file of the Reference Court.
6. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimant,
P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked. On
behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-
Award was marked.
7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for
Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court has
erred in relying upon Exs.A-1 and A-2-sale deeds, which pertain to
different village and covers smaller extents of land, for fixing the
3 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
market value of the acquired lands; that in the absence of the
claimant adducing any evidence to show that the nature, fertility
and potentiality of land covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2 is same as
that of the acquired lands, the Reference Court erred in taking the
said documents into consideration and thereby, enhancing the
market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; and finally, he
prayed the Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the
Reference Court.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross-objectors/
claimants contended that the Reference Court having accepted the
sale transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2, erred in not adopting the
market value mentioned therein for fixing the market value of the
subject acquired land; that without assigning any reasons, the
Reference Court assessed the market value of the subject acquired
land @ Rs.90,000/-, which is not fair and reasonable, in the facts of
the given case and also in the light of the evidence placed on
record; and therefore, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the
impugned order and enhance the market value of the subject
acquired land.
4 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
9. Perusal of the record discloses that before the Reference
Court Exs.A-1 to A-16 were pressed into service on behalf of the
claimants. In the impugned order, the Reference Court has held that
Exs.A-1 and A-2-sale deeds are proved through P.Ws.2 and 3
respectively. P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that the lands covered under
the said sale deeds are similar in valuation, fertility and potentiality
with the subject acquired land and as such, the market value of the
subject acquired land would not be less than Rs.2,00,000/- per acre.
10. P.W-1-claimant deposed reiterating the averments made by
him in the Claim Petition to the effect that the subject acquired land
is very fertile and is yielding two crops per year; that it is located in
the Command Area of SRSP Canal; and that it has got good
potential market value as it is in the industrial zone of SCC Ltd.,
National Thermal Power Centre and very close to Ramagundam
Municipal Corporation. He further deposed that the Land
Acquisition Officer has failed to make proper enquiry and has fixed
very meager market value for the subject acquired land following
the pick and choose method in adopting the sale deeds relating to
three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification and therefore, the
5 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
market value of the subject acquired land has to be fixed @
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre.
11. P.W.5 is the vendee, who purchased land to an extent of
Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.760 of Vennampalli Village in the year
1995 by oral agreement for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- per acre
from the claimant. However, credence cannot be given to the
evidence of P.W-5 since the agreement is said to be oral.
12. P.W-6 deposed that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.09
guntas in Sy.No.760 of Vennampalli Village for sale consideration
@ Rs.45,000/- per acre, in the year 1995. However, the said sale
deed was not marked.
13. Even R.W-1 deposed that his predecessor passed the Award
and he is not aware of the enquiry proceedings. He deposed based
on the records available with respect to the Award, therefore, his
evidence is of no help to the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer.
14. Though the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant
were cross-examined, their evidence stood unrebutted. Thus, the
ample evidence is placed on record by the claimant in proof of his
case that the acquired land is fertile and is situated in the limits of
Vennampalli. The very purpose of acquisition of the subject land
6 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
for house sites shows their potentiality for being converted into
house sites.
15. Ex.A-1-sale deed pertains to sale of land situated in
Kunaram Village, which is said to be adjacent to Vennampalli
Village, where the subject acquired land is located.
16. Further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Special Deputy
Collector Vs. E.Jaggareddy and others 1 , wherein the following
principle has been enunciated:-
"In a case where a document of the same village is
available, it is neither permissible nor desirable for the
court to take into account the documents of the
neighbouring villages. If the document is of a neighbouring
village and if the same land is abutting the land that has
been acquired then it can be taken into account. So the
distance also has to be considered while taking into account
the documents of a neighbouring village."
17. In the instant case, it is to be noted that the distance
between Kunaram and Vennampalli villages is about 4 kms.
Therefore, in the light of the above judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, when the sale deeds pertaining to the Village
where the acquisition is effected are available, it is not desirable to
1992(2) ALT 578 (D.B)
7 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
rely upon the sale deed/s relating to another Village-Vennampalli
Village, which is at a considerable distance of about 4 kms. Hence,
Ex.A-1 cannot be taken as a representative sale deed for fixing the
market value of the subject acquired land.
18. Both the land purchased by P.W-3 and the land sold by
P.W-6 under the sale transactions are located in Sy.No.760 of
Vennampalli Village and the sale consideration passed under the
said transactions works out to Rs.2,42,000/- per acre and
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, respectively. P.W-3 is the vendor in respect
of Ex.A-2-sale deed. As observed earlier, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to
6 to the effect that the subject acquired land and the land covered
by the sale transactions effected by them are similar in valuation,
fertility and housing potentiality, stood unrebutted.
19. Admittedly, the subject acquired land is also located in
Sy.No.760. In such an event, Ex.A-2 can be taken as an exemplar
sale deed for fixing the market value of the subject acquired land,
as was rightly taken by the Reference Court in the impugned order.
However, the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the
acquired land @ Rs.90,000/- per acre without assigning any reason,
whatsoever, for assessing the said lesser figure.
8 AKS,J & LNA, J
Cross-Obj(SR).No.5363 of 2008
in/and
20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the
Reference Court has committed irregularity and infirmity in
passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
21. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is dismissed and the Cross-Objections filed by the
claimants are allowed, fixing the market value of the subject
acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. It is further ordered that
the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act on
the enhanced market value.
22. As a sequel, interim order, dated 17.01.2008, granted in
LAASMP.No.2322 of 2007 shall stand vacated. Pending
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:04.10.2024
dr
