Telangana High Court
Mohd. Saleemuddin Died Per Lr And ... vs The Land Acquisition Officer 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.692 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard Sri Mohd. Manzoor Nayeem, 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 claimant aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 11.06.2010 passed in OP.No.763 of 1999 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter
referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made
by the Executive Engineer, I & CAD (PW) Department, for
acquiring lands of Kandukurthi Village which are coming under
submergence contour levels of Sriramsagar Project, the land
belonging to the appellants/claimants to an extent of Acs.13.04
guntas situated in Sy.No.512 of Kandukurthi Village, Nizamabad
District, was acquired; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
the Act was published in District Gazette on 03.05.1994; and that
after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after
conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an
Award, dated 03.05.1995, fixing the market value of the acquired
lands @ Rs.15,000/- per acre.
4. The appellants/claimants received the compensation
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as OP.No.763 of 1999 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/
claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, none was examined
and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, by the impugned order enhanced the compensation for the
acquired lands to Rs.27,250/- per acre, apart from granting other
statutory benefits under the Act to the appellants/claimants.
Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that
the subject lands and the lands covered under Ex.A-5 are situated
in the same village and were acquired through the same 4(1)
notification, as such, the market value fixed by the Reference Court
vide Ex.A-5 has to be taken into consideration for fixation of fair
market value of the subject acquired lands, but the Reference Court
failed to consider the same and erroneously declined to apply the
market value fixed therein for the subject acquired lands. Learned
counsel further contended that as per Ex.A-4-G.O.Ms.No.56,
Irrigation & CAD (PW:SRSP.I) Department, dated 23.04.2002, for
the lands acquired for construction of Sriramsagar Project, Flood
Flow Canal, the compensation was fixed for different categories of
lands mentioned therein and since the subject lands are also coming
under submergence of Sriramsagar Backwaters, the Reference
Court ought to have fixed the market value of the acquired lands
based on Ex.A-4, but it failed to do so. The learned counsel,
therefore, contended that the impugned order is erroneous and not
based on the evidence adduced on record and as such, the same is
liable to be set aside.
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that Reference
Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record,
particularly, it has rightly taken the intent and scope of Ex.A-4-
G.O. and passed the impugned order duly giving cogent reasons for
arriving at the conclusions, therefore, the impugned order is
sustainable and this Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Apropos the above submissions of learned counsel appearing
for both the parties, this Court has thoroughly scrutinized the
evidence placed on record for fixation of fair and reasonable
market value for the subject acquired lands.
10. Ex.A-1 is the judgment in O.P.No.621 of 1994, wherein for
the lands acquired in Kandukurthi Village for submergence of
+1093 contour level of Sriramsagar Project Reservoir, the market
value was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- per acre as against Rs.14,000/-
per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As rightly observed
by the Reference Court, the lands covered under Ex.A-1 are
acquired through 4(1) notification issued in the year 1993, whereas
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
the subject acquired lands are acquired through 4(1) notification
issued in the year 1994, thus, there is a time gap of one year.
11. As per Section 23 of the Act, one of the factors for
determining the compensation for the acquired lands is the market
value of the land as on the date of the publication of 4(1)
notification. Thus, in the light of Section 23 of the Act, the
appellants/claimants are entitled to fixation of compensation based
on Ex.A-1. Since there is a time gap of one year in the dates of
issuance of 4(1) notifications in both the cases, it is desirable to
give escalation of @ 10% per annum, which works out to
Rs.27,250/- per acre, as was rightly assessed by the Reference
Court.
12. Coming to Ex.A-2, it is a registered sale deed pertaining to
land situated in Borgam Village, as per which, the market value of
the land is Rs.25,333/- per acre. Though the appellants/claimants
placed reliance on Ex.A-2, they failed to substantiate their case by
giving the proximity between the subject acquired lands and the
land covered under Ex.A-2. Admittedly, the land covered under
Ex.A-2 pertains to a different village, therefore, unless it is averred
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
and proved by the appellants/claimants that there are no sale
transactions executed in respect of lands situated in the subject
Village, Ex.A-2 cannot be taken into consideration as per the
judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Special Deputy
Collector Vs. E.Jaggareddy and others 1, wherein it has been
observed as under:-
"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."
13. In the light of the above judgment, it is not safe to rely
upon Ex.A-2-sale deed for fixation of market value of the acquired
lands.
14. As regards Ex.A-3-sale deed, it relates to sale of an extent of
Ac.0.01 gunta of land in Kandukurthi Village for consideration of
Rs.1,200/-. It is apt to refer to the principle laid down by the
1992(2) ALT 578 (D.B)
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. RDO 2,
wherein it is held that sale deeds for small extents in approved lay
out or of agricultural land cannot be taken as a comparable sale to
fix fair market value of comparably large chunk of land. In the
instant case, large chunk of Acs.13.04 guntas of land was acquired,
therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vasireddi Bharata Rao's case (cited supra), Ex.A-3
cannot be taken as an exemplar sale deed for fixation of market
value of the acquired lands. That apart, hardly there is any evidence
on record as to whether the fertility, potentiality and other
advantages of land covered under Ex.A-3 and the present acquired
lands are identical/similar and further, the date of execution of
Ex.A-3-sale deed is of the year 1983, i.e., not in proximity to the
date of issuance of 4(1) notification in the instant case. Therefore,
for all the above reasons, this Court holds that Ex.A-3 can be
excluded from consideration for fixation of market value of the
acquired lands.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants mainly placed
reliance on G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 23.04.2002, (Ex.A-4) and
1992 SCC OnLine AP 85
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
contended that the compensation fixed therein shall also be applied
to the present case.
16. This Court has meticulously perused G.O.Ms.No.56, dated
23.04.2002. As per the said G.O., the District Lok Adalat
Committee has recommended different rates of compensation for
different categories of lands which were acquired for constructing
of Sriramsagar Project, Flood Flow Canal. Further clause-8 of the
said G.O., reads as under:-
"Government also declare that the rates agreed to are
applicable only for those lands intended to be acquired
for the purpose of Sriramsagar Project, Flood Flow
Canal from KM 0.000 to KM 29.000 in Nizamabad
District."
17. Thus, from a reading of the above clause, it is clear that the
Government issued the said G.O. only in respect of the lands
intended to be acquired for purpose of Sriramsagar Project, Flood
Flow Canal from KM 0.000 to KM 29.000. In the instant case, the
subject acquired lands are affected in Sriramsagar Back waters.
Hence, the purpose of acquisition of the subject acquired lands
being different than the one mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.56, the
subject acquired lands does not fall under G.O.Ms.No.56 and the
said G.O. does not come to the rescue or aid of the
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
appellants/claimant for enhancing the market value of the acquired
lands.
18. With regard to the contention of the appellants/claimants
placing reliance on Ex.A-5-judgment in O.P.No.848 of 2001, a
perusal of said judgment discloses that the said judgment was
passed placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.56. Therefore, for the
reasons alike in declining to rely upon G.O.Ms.No.56, Ex.A-5 also
merits no consideration and the same is not helpful to the
appellants/claimants.
19. For the aforesaid stated reasons, this Court holds that except
Ex.A-1, the other evidence vide Exs.A-2 to A-5 are no way helpful
to the appellants/claimants to substantiate their claim for
enhancement of market value of the acquired lands.
20. In the light of the above 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 fixed fair
and reasonable market value for the acquired lands @ Rs.27,250/-
per acre.
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appellants/claimants failed to show any
valid ground for interfering with the impugned order.
22. Therefore, this Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
23. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:16.10.2024
dr
