Telangana High Court

The Land Acquisition Officer, Rdo, vs Mohd. Abdul Khader, 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.554 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing

for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer. None appeared 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 common order and decree dated 11.02.2014

passed in respect of LAOP.No.1080 of 2003 on the file of the

I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (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 {R&B}, Nizamabad, for acquiring

lands for construction of High Level Bridge at KM 8/2 on

Dichpally, Nizamabad road in the limits of Dharmaram Village,

total extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.28 ½ guntas in different

survey numbers, which includes the lands to an extent of 2 AKS, J & LNA, J

Ac.0.09½ guntas, Ac.0.02 ½ guntas and Ac.0.01 guntas in

Sy.No.113 of Dichpally Village, belonging to the appellants-

claimants, respectively, were acquired; that Draft Notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act, invoking urgency clause, was

published in District Gazette on 19.07.1999; and that after

following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after

conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award,

vide proceedings No.B2/2259/98, dated 28.03.2000, fixing the

market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10/- per square yard.

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 referred to

the civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.1080 of 2003 on the file

of the Reference Court. The said O.P. was tried along with other

O.P.No.527 of 2004, wherein common evidence was adduced.

5. Before the Reference Court, in the joint trial, on behalf of

the claimants therein, P.Ws-1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 and

A-2 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, none was

examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.

3 AKS, J & LNA, J

6. The Reference Court on appreciation of the evidence, both

oral and documentary, placed on record, passed common order

enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.200/- per

square yard from Rs.10/- per square yard as was awarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the said common order, the

present appeal is filed in respect of the order passed in

LAOP.No.1080 of 2003.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the

land covered under Ex.A-1-sale deed is very small extent and

relates to a different Village than the Village where the subject

acquired lands are situated and as such, Ex.A-1 cannot be taken as

representative sale deed for fixing the market value of the subject

acquired lands, but, ignoring the said fact the Reference Court

erred in relying upon Ex.A-1 and enhancing the market value for

the subject acquired lands; and that the enhancement made by the

Reference Court is exorbitant and without any justification for such

enhancement. By contending thus, he prayed this Court to set aside

the impugned order.

4 AKS, J & LNA, J

8. This Court has carefully perused the impugned order passed

by the Reference Court vis-à-vis the exhibits marked. Only two

documents viz., Ex.A-1-sale deed, dated 03.02.1999 and Ex.A-2-

consent Award, dated 10.01.2011, were marked on behalf of the

claimants.

9. As rightly observed by the Reference Court, Ex.A-2-

Consent Award relates to lands acquired in the year 2010 for the

purpose of formation of bye-pass road to Nizamabad town,

whereas in the instant case, the acquisition of the subject lands was

effected in the year 1999. Thus, there is a time gap of more than ten

years between the said two acquisitions. In the interregnum, much

development would have taken place, due to which the prices

would have escalated relatively. With regard to applicability of the

Consent Award, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition

Officer Vs. Savitha1 held as under:-

"In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which consent award has been passed should be considered and the parties agreed to .accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body

(2022) 7 SCC 256 5 AKS, J & LNA, J

and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record."

10. In the light of the said judgment, considering the

circumstances i.e., the relevant time and purpose under which

Ex.A-2-consent award was passed and for the reasons aforestated,

Ex.A-2-Consent Award cannot be taken into consideration for

fixation of market value of the subject acquired lands.

11. Now, insofar as Ex.A-1-sale deed is concerned, it pertains to

sale of land admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.Nos.112, 113 and

114 of Bardipur Village @ Rs.500/- per square yard. Admittedly,

the subject acquired lands are also situated in Sy.No.113 of

Bardipur Village. However, the distinguishing factor between both

the said lands is that the land covered under Ex.A-1-sale deed is

sold on square yard basis, which, shows that it is in a developed

layout and can be utilized for construction of commercial or

residential purposes, whereas, admittedly, even as per the case of

the claimants the subject acquired lands are garden lands and are 6 AKS, J & LNA, J

more fertile. Thus, though the subject acquired lands and the land

covered under Ex.A-1-sale deed are in the same Survey Number,

no comparable similarity exist between them. Here, it is relevant to

refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Villuben

Jalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat 2. In the said judgment, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles for determination

of the market value of the acquired lands. For better appreciation of

the case, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted as

hereunder:-

"Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of any entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 2% to 5% of the total price."

12. This Court has analyzed the positive and negative factors

mentioned in the aforesaid judgment, particularly, the potentiality,

proximity, etc., of the subject acquired lands vis-à-vis the land

covered under Ex.A-1. As stated earlier, the acquired lands are

large chunk of agricultural lands compared to the extent of land

25 4 SCC 789 7 AKS, J & LNA, J

covered under Ex.A-1 i.e., 300 square yards, which is situated in

centre of Bardipur Village, therefore, appropriate deduction

towards developmental charges has to be made while assessing the

market value of the subject acquired lands. By considering the case

from that angle and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court has rightly