Telangana High Court

The Special Deputy Collector vs Srigiri Malla Reddy on 30 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.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016
                              and
         Cross-Objections (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Since both the Appeals and the Cross-Objections in both the

Appeals are filed challenging the common order and decree passed

by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, they are heard

together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing

for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Kandi

Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/cross-

objectors.

3. LAAS.No.94 of 2016, 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 16.04.2014 passed in respect of LAOP.No.34 of 2013 on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to

as "the Reference Court').

2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

4. LAAS.No.98 of 2016, under Section 54 of the Act, is filed

by the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the common order

and decree dated 16.04.2014 passed in respect of LAOP.No.36 of

2013 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. In brief, the facts of the case in LAAS.No.94 of 2016,

arising out of order passed in LAOP.No.34 of 2013, are that lands

to an extent of Acs.14.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.335 and 336 of

Chegurthy Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, belonging to

the claimants were acquired for the purpose of laying of pipe line

under Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Sujala Sravanthi Project

(Godavari); that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act

was published in the A.P. Gazette on 03.11.2011; that Draft

Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P.

Gazette on 04.11.2011; after following the procedure prescribed

under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition

Officer passed Award, No.40/2011-12, dated 30.03.2012, fixing

the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.1,27,000/- per

acre.

3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

6. In brief, the facts of the case in LAAS.No.98 of 2016,

arising out of order passed in LAOP.No.36 of 2013, are that lands

admeasuring Acs.3.19 guntas in Sy.No.337 of Chegurthy Village,

Karimnagar Mandal and District, belonging to the claimants were

acquired for the purpose of laying of pipe line under Moulana

Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that

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

the A.P. Gazette on 27.05.2011; that Draft Declaration under

Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on

28.05.2011; after following the procedure prescribed under the Act

and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed

Award No.20/2012-13, dated 19.02.2013, fixing the market value

of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,27,000/- per acre.

7. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the

Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the acquired lands in both

the Awards sought references under Section 18 of the Act and the

same were referred to the competent Civil Court and were

numbered as LAOP.Nos.34 and 36 of 2013 on the file of the

Reference Court.

4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

8. As the lands under acquisition in both the References are

situated in same Village and are acquired for same purpose, basing

on the Memo filed by the claimants and in order to avoid conflict

of decisions, the Reference Court has clubbed both the LAOPs,

recorded common evidence in LAOP.No.34 of 2013 and passed the

common order, which is impugned in the present cases.

9. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the

claimants/cross-objectors, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1

to P-13 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1

was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked.

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

oral and documentary, passed the impugned common order partly

allowing the said LAOPs and thereby, enhancing the market value

of the acquired lands in both the LAOPs to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre,

apart from granting all other statutory benefits under the Act to the

claimants. The Reference Court has, however, confirmed the

compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for wells,

trees, structures and pipelines that existed in the lands covered in

LAOP.No.36 of 2013. Neither in the Appeals nor in the Cross-

5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

Objections, the issue as regards the compensation granted for the

aforesaid structures was raised, therefore, this Court is not inclined

to deal with the same.

11. Challenging the said common order passed by the

Reference Court with regard to fixation of market value of the

acquired lands, the present Appeals are filed by the Land

Acquisition Officer seeking to set aside the said common order and

the Cross-Objections are filed by the claimants seeking further

enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court.

12. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for

Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer that

the Reference Court erred in relying upon Exs.A-1 and A-2 which

pertain to sale of small extents of land; that the Reference Court

ought to have deducted 50% of the value reflected in Exs.A-1 and

A-2 while determining the market value of the acquired lands; that

the Reference Court has not given cogent and convincing reasons

for enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition

Officer; and therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the

impugned common order.

6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/cross-

objectors contended that Reference Court failed to take note of the

fact that the acquired lands are fully developed and are non-

agricultural in nature having been converted as such prior to

acquisition; that the Reference Court erred in considering the fact

that the acquired lands are adjacent to State Highway and are

abutting Rajivrahadari leading to Hyderabad from Ramagundam;

that Reference Court while relying upon Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale

deeds erred in not fixing the market value of the acquired lands

based on the market value reflected in Exs.P-1 and P-2 and

therefore, learned counsel sought for enhancement of market value

of the acquired lands fixed by the Reference Court.

14. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the

submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the

parties. Perused the entire material available on record.

15. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have marked

Ex.P-1-sale deed, dated 02.01.2009, whereunder an extent of 544.5

square yards of land in Sy.No.258 of Chegurthi Village was sold @

Rs.6,71,200/- per acre and Ex.P-2-sale deed, dated 13.05.2009, 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

whereunder an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.301 of

Chegurthy Village was sold @ Rs.8,70,000/- per acre.

16. One of the claimants by name Srigiri Malla Reddy got

himself examined as P.W-1. He deposed reiterating the averments

made in the Claim Petitions. He inter alia deposed that the

acquired lands are abutting the State Highway which is leading

from Ramagundam to Hyderabad; that the acquired lands are

parallel and in periphery of Karimnagar; that number of houses and

commercial establishments exist in the vicinity of the acquired

lands; that the acquired lands are fully developed and have been

converted from agricultural to residential purpose prior to

acquisition; and therefore, the acquired lands have high potentiality

for house sites and also for commercial establishments. He further

deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed meager market

value for the acquired lands.

17. The attestor of Ex.P-1-sale deed was examined as P.W.2.

He deposed that the land covered under Ex.P-1 is abutting the

acquired lands and that the acquired lands are situated ½ km from

Rajiv Rahadari and as such, they have potential for conversion into 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

house plots as well as can be used for commercial purposes and

therefore, the acquired lands fetch high market value.

18. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length,

nothing contrary was elicited and their evidence stood unrebutted.

P.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice stated that the acquired lands are at a

distance of ½ km from Rajiv Rahadari (Rajiv State Highway).

19. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that they

categorically deposed that some part of the acquired lands are

fields and in rest of the lands, there exist residential houses, petrol

bunks, small industries and colleges in the acquired lands. This

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the material aspects like

location, potentiality, nature, etc., of the acquired lands remained

unchallenged.

20. Though it is the case of the claimants that by the time of

acquisition, the subject acquired lands were converted into non-

agricultural purposes, no proof is adduced in that regard. Therefore,

the said contention of the claimants merits no consideration.

21. From the above, it is evident that the respondents-claimants

have established that the acquired lands are having high 9 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

potentiality for house sites as they are situated at distance of ½ km

from Rajiv State Highway and thereby, rendering them to fetch

higher market value.

22. Further, it is to be noted that the subject lands in

LAAS.No.94 of 2016 were acquired in pursuance of 4(1)

notification published on 03.11.2011 and the subject lands in

LAAS.No.98 of 2016 were acquired in pursuance of 4(1)

notification published on 27.05.2011 and the acquisition in both the

cases is for the same purpose in the same Village i.e., Chegurthy

Village. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed Exs.R-1 and

R-2-Awards fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands

@ Rs.1,27,000/- per acre and Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, respectively.

23. This Court, on meticulous scrutiny of Ex.B-1-Award, finds

that in Ex.R-1-Award, dated 30.03.2012, at Sl.No.41, sale

transaction pertaining to land in Sy.No.335 was shown, which

reflects the market value of the land covered thereunder as

Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has

discarded the said sale deed shown at Sl.No.41 on ground that the

extent covered thereunder is small.

10 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

24. Further, it is not out of place to note that the sale

transactions of Chegurthty Village for the period from 11.11.2008

to 10.11.2011 referred to in Ex.R-1-Award are not mentioned in

Ex.R-2-Award which is in respect of the same Village for the

period from 22.05.2008 to 23.05.2011. In Ex.R-2-Award, the Land

Acquisition Officer has recorded that there are no sales from

13.05.2010 to 23.05.2011 in Chegurthy Village. This observation

of Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R-2-Award is incorrect in the

light of Ex.R-1-Award, whereunder in respect of same Village i.e.,

Chegurthy Village as many as 32 sale deeds were referred to for

the period from 13.05.2010 to 23.05.2011. Thus, this Court

believes that the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and

choose method even in referring to sale transactions for the

relevant period of three years preceding the date of 4(1)

notification. This approach on the part of the Land Acquisition

Officer is not appreciable.

25. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs,

this Court holds that the claimants have succeeded in proving their

case that the subject acquired lands are situated at a distance of 11 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

½ km from Rajiv State Highway, and thus, have potentiality for

commercial establishments, and that residential houses, petrol

bunks, Engineering Colleges, Dhabas, etc., exist in their vicinity,

which goes to show that the acquired lands are in fully developed

area.

26. Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court

concurs with the finding of the Reference Court in the impugned

order that the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and

choose method while adopting the sale transactions and adopted

the sale deeds which reflect lesser market value, when, admittedly,

the sale transactions of higher market value are available. Thus,

this Court perceives the illegality and irregularity in Exs.R-1 and

R-2-Awards, which was rightly found fault with by the Reference

Court in the impugned order.

27. Now, for determining the just compensation for the acquired

lands, it is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Pohu and another 1 and

State of Madras Vs. P.Seethamma and another 2, wherein it is

(1984) 86 P & H LR540

AIR 1972 Madras 170 12 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

held that while determining the compensation for the acquired

lands on the basis of sale deeds of similar lands, the sale deeds

fetching highest value prevailing in the market at the relevant time

should be preferred.

28. In the instant cases, the subject acquired lands are situated in

Sy.Nos.335, 336 and 337 and they are acquired for the purpose of

laying pipeline. Therefore, it goes to show that the said survey

numbers are contiguous.

29. In Ex.R-1-Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer,

the sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.335, which is one of the

survey numbers in which the acquired lands are situated, is shown

at Sl.No.41. The said sale deed is dated 29.12.2010 executed for

sale of an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas of land for a consideration of

Rs.1,62,500/-, which works out to Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.

30. Though in Exs.R-1 and R-2-Awards, sale deeds whereunder

larger extents of land than the extent covered by sale deed shown at

Sl.No.41 are mentioned, the said sale deeds are in respect of

different survey numbers of Chegurthy Village. Also, it is to be

noted that at Sl.No.42, sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.337/A 13 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

is shown, whereunder the sale consideration for an extent of

Ac.0.06 guntas is Rs.1,98,000/-, which works out to Rs.13,20,000/-

per acre. Though the said sale deed shown at Sl.No.42 pertains to

one of the Survey Numbers in which the acquired lands are

situated, the extent covered thereunder being very small i.e.,

Ac.0.06 guntas only, much credence cannot be given to the said

document and accordingly, the same does not weigh with this

Court for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands.

Applying the same analogy to the sale deed mentioned at Sl.No.43,

i.e., the extent of land covered thereunder being small i.e., Ac.0.05

guntas, the same is also not taken into consideration. The sale deed

which reflects the next highest amount @ Rs.8,18,182/- is shown at

Sl.No.48 in respect of land in Sy.No.338. However, as observed by

the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R-1-Award, since the market

value reflected therein is very higher compared to similar lands in

the vicinity, the same also does not deserve any consideration. As

regards the sale deeds shown at Sl.Nos.62 to 65, which reflect the

next highest value i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, the same pertains to

sale of house sites, therefore, the said sale deeds cannot be taken 14 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

into account for fixing the market value of the subject acquired

lands, which are admittedly agricultural lands. As such, the said

sale deeds cannot be the basis for fixation of market value of the

subject acquired lands.

31. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the abovementioned sale

deeds pertaining to the relevant period i.e., three years prior to 4(1)

notification, which are referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer

in Ex.R-1-Award are not taken as basis for fixation of fair and

reasonable market value of the subject acquired lands.

32. Even Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds relied upon by the

claimants are pertaining to lands situated in Sy.Nos.258 and 301,

respectively, which are situated at a distance of ½ km from the

subject acquired lands.

33. In the above circumstances, it is apt to note that the Survey

number covered by the sale deed shown at Sl.No.41 of Ex.R-1-

Award and one of the survey numbers in which the acquired lands

are situated are one and the same i.e., Sy.No.335 and therefore, the

said sale deed can be safely considered for fixing the market value 15 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016

of the subject acquired lands. Accordingly, the market value of the

subject acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.

34. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the Reference Court has committed error in

fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands based on

Exs.A-1 and A-2 and accordingly, the impugned order warrants

interference by this Court.

35. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals filed by the Land

Acquisition Officer are dismissed and the Cross-Objections filed

by the claimants are allowed in part, enhancing the market value of

the subject acquired lands from Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to

Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.