Telangana High Court

The Laocumspl Dy Collector, Karimnagar vs Duvvasi Chandramouli, Karimnagar Dist ... on 16 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

                        LAAS.No.394 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard Sri G.R.S.Akhileswar, learned counsel, representing

Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India, appearing for the appellant and Sri A.Krupadhar 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 31.10.2013 passed in

LAOP.No.60 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial

(hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition

made by the Executive Engineer (Con), South Central Railway,

Karimnagar, lands admeasuring Acs.05-23 guntas in Sy.Nos.278,

279, 280, 363, 364, 397 and 398 of Nachupally Village, Kodimial

Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to the respondents/

claimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of new broad

gauge single railway line from Karimnagar to Jagtial; that Draft 2 AKS, J & LNA, J

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on

22.07.2006; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was

published on 24.08.2006; and that after following the procedure

prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed Award No.1 of 2007, dated 06.01.2007,

fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.74,000/- per

acre.

4. Dissatisfied with the Award, the respondents/ claimants

sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was

referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as

L.A.O.P.No.60 of 2009 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the

respondents/claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to

P-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer,

R.W-1 was examined and Ex.R-1-Award and Ex.R-2 were marked.

6. On due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market

value of the acquired lands to Rs.5,28,000/- per acre, apart from

granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the 3 AKS, J & LNA, J

respondents/claimants. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is

filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that

the Reference Court erred in awarding compensation based on the

transactions related to house sites, though the acquired lands are

agricultural lands, as admitted by the claimants; that the Reference

Court erred in not considering the transaction relied upon by the

land acquisition officer under Ex.R-2-sale deed; that the Award

was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after conducting

detailed enquiry and on considering the sale transactions of three

years preceding the date of notification and fixed just and

reasonable compensation; that not even a single house number was

mentioned by the claimants to show that the lands acquired were

already converted to residential plots; and that therefore, the market

value enhanced by the Reference Court is unsustainable and is

liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted

that the Reference Court, by taking into consideration Exs.P-1 and

P-2-sale deeds, had rightly enhanced the compensation from 4 AKS, J & LNA, J

Rs.74,000/- per acre to Rs.5,28,000/- per acre by giving 10%

escalation over and above the value mentioned thereunder.

9. Claimant No.4 who got himself examined as P.W-1 and one

of the attestors of Ex.P-2-sale deed who was examined as P.W-2

have deposed in same lines to the effect that the subject acquired

lands are abutting Karimnagar-Nizamabad State Highway and are

near to Kondagattu pilgrimage and Jawaharlal Nehru

Technological University Branch and that the acquired lands are in

the vicinity of educational and commercial places. Even R.W-1 in

his cross examination admitted that the acquired lands are very

near to Karimnagar-Nizamabad State High way and railway line is

running parallel to the said State Highway. Thus, the location of

the acquired lands, as established by the respondents/claimants,

show that they have got good potentiality being in the vicinity of

commercial and educational institutions.

10. In the impugned order, the Reference Court has observed

that the Land Acquisition Officer was not examined to depose the

factors based on which the market value of acquired lands was

fixed @ Rs.74,000/- per acre. On behalf of the Land Acquisition 5 AKS, J & LNA, J

Officer, R.W-1 was examined, who deposed based on the contents

of Ex.R-1-Award. Admittedly, R.W-1 had no knowledge of the

enquiry proceedings and he only deposed reiterating the contents of

Ex.R-1-Award. Further, it is to be noted that the sale deed at

Sl.No.79 of Ex.R-1-Award showing the highest value was

discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the

land covered under the said sale deed is far away from the subject

acquired lands, without mentioning the actual distance between

them. Moreover, the Revenue Village map of Nachupally was not

placed before the Court to enable the Court to determine the actual

distance between them. Therefore, this approach and stance of the

Land Acquisition Officer in discarding the sale deed at Sl.No.79

cannot be appreciated.

11. Now, coming to the evidence adduced on behalf of the

respondents/claimants in support of their claim for enhancement of

market value, it is to be seen that Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds were

marked. Admittedly, the lands sold under Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale

deed are small chunks of land which are situated in Nachupally

Village. The genuineness of Ex.P-2-sale deed was also proved by 6 AKS, J & LNA, J

the claimants by examining one of the attestors thereto as P.W-2.

The evidence of P.W-2 stood unrebutted.

12. In such circumstances of the case, it is relevant to refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trishala Jain v. State

of Uttaranchal 1, wherein it was held as under:-

"44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly, the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits."

13. In the present case, the land covered under Ex.P-1-sale deed,

dated 30.06.2005, is an extent of Ac.0-07 guntas and the market

value reflected therein works out to Rs.4,84,000/- per acre. Ex.P-2

1 (2011) 6 SCC 47.

7 AKS, J & LNA, J

is sale deed, dated 26.09.2005, under which land to an extent of

437 square yards was sold @ Rs.4,84,000/- per acre.

14. As per the material available on record and in the absence of

any rebuttal to the evidence of P.W-2 regarding the location and

potentiality of the subject acquired lands and further, as the

genuineness of Exs.P-1 and P-2 is proved by the claimants, this

Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Trishala Jain's (cited supra) is squarely

applicable to the instant case.

15. As regards the deduction towards developmental charges, it

is to be noted that in the instant case, the subject lands were

acquired for the purpose of formation of broad gauge single

railway line. When the land is acquired for the purpose of

formation of broad gauge single railway line, there is no question

of development of such acquired land since the acquired land

would be totally used for laying or formation of a railway line. In

this regard, the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Nelson Fernandes v.

Land Acquisition Officer 2, held that the question of deduction

2 (2007) 9 SCC 447.

8 AKS, J & LNA, J

towards developmental charges does not arise when the purpose of

acquisition is for laying railway line. For better appreciation, the

relevant portion is reproduced as hereunder:-

"30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat [(1995) 5 SCC 422] and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu [(2003) 12 SCC 334: (2003) 10 Scale 307] had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes, deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise.

29. Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and of the High Court have failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. In this context, we may usefully refer the judgment of this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789: JT (2005) 4 SC 282]. This Court held that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges."

16. In the present case, since the purpose of acquisition is for

formation of railway line, the contention of appellant-Land 9 AKS, J & LNA, J

Acquisition Officer that deduction towards development charges

shall be made holds no water.

17. Further, it is to be noted that the time gap between Ex.P-2-

sale deed, which is taken as representative sale and Section 4(1)

notification is one year i.e., from 30.06.2005 to 22.07.2006. In this

context, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation 3, wherein it was held that a cumulative

increase of 10% to 15% may be given based on facts and

circumstances of each case. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

judgment reads as under:-

"28. However, at the same time, bearing in mind the decision of this Court in Pehlad Ram [Pehlad Ram v. HUDA, (2014) 14 SCC 778 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 408], by which this Court has observed and held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of 10% cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12% cumulative increase would have been adopted, it would have been just and proper and in the fitness of things."

3 (2022) 7 SCC 563.

10 AKS, J & LNA, J

18. In the light of the said judgment, this Court is of the

considered view that the Reference Court has rightly given 10%

escalation for the time gap of one year between the dates of

execution of representative sale deed (Ex.P-2) and the 4(1)

notification.

19. For the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the

impugned order passed by the Reference Court is based on

evidence placed on record and the Reference Court has not

committed any illegality or irregularity in enhancing the market

value of the acquired lands to Rs.5,28,000/- per acre.