Telangana High Court
Boya Ashanna vs The Land Acquisition Officer Cum ... on 2 September, 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.80 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, 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 claimants challenging the
order and decree dated 18.08.2009 passed in O.P.No.73 of 2005 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal (hereinafter referred to as
"the Reference Court').
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the lands total
admeasuring Acs.11.22 guntas belonging to the appellants-
claimants situated at Dharoor Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar
District (presently situated in Gadwal-Jogulamba District, after
reorganization of the Districts) were acquired for the purpose of
laying of road from Gadwal to Raichur; that draft Notification
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
under Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration under Section 6
of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette on 12.01.1978; and that
the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry,
passed Award No.9 of 1979, dated 26.04.1979, fixing the market
value of the acquired lands @ Rs.900/- per acre for group 'A'
category lands and @ Rs.600/- per acre for group 'B' category
lands.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted in the
Award, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18
of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.73 of 2005 on
the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/
claimants, P.Ws-1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined
and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, dismissed the said OP., thereby confirming the market
value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired lands,
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
vide Award No.9 of 1979, dated 26.04.1979. Challenging the said
order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that
the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents, vide
Exs.A-1 to A-14 and the oral evidence through P.Ws.1 to 7 in right
perspective; that the Reference Court failed to consider the
potential value of the acquired lands and thereby, committed
illegality in coming to a conclusion that the market value fixed by
the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable and therefore,
the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference
Court on proper appreciation of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, available on record, has rightly answered the
Reference against the appellants-claimants and therefore, the
impugned order warrants no interference by this Court.
9. Before the Reference Court, to substantiate their claim for
enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands, the
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
appellants-claimants have examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked as
many as 14 documents, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14.
10. The market value of the land can be determined based on
the factors like its location, i.e., whether it is in developed or
undeveloped area, its fertility, its potentiality, the area of land
acquired i.e., whether it is big chunk or a small plot, its advantages
and disadvantages, etc.
11. By adverting to the above said factors and by taking into
consideration the evidence adduced by the appellants-claimants,
viz., Exs.A-1 to A-14, this Court has to examine whether the
Reference Court committed any error in dismissing the Reference
made by the appellants herein.
12. This Court has meticulously perused the evidence adduced
by both the parties before the Reference Court and has also given
its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned
counsel for both the parties in this Appeal.
13. A perusal of the evidence on record discloses that Ex.A-1
is the topography; Ex.A-2 is judgment rendered by the Court of
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, which pertains to
the lands acquired in Ryalampad Village of Alampur Mandal.
Admittedly, the lands under acquisition in the present case are
situated in Dharoor Village. The distance between Ryalampad
Village and Dharoor Village is 9 kilometers. Therefore, Ex.A-2 is
of no aid to the appellants-claimants.
14. As regards Ex.A-3, it is to be noted that though P.W-3
deposed that compensation for his lands was fixed by the High
Court, vide Ex.A-3 and that his acquired properties and the
properties acquired under the present appeal are one and the same,
he did not depose as to the actual distance between them. Further,
even Ex.A-3 does not reveal the location of the acquired properties
therein and the purpose of acquisition of the said properties. In
such an event, this Court does not deem it just and proper to rely on
said document for fixation of market value of the subject acquired
lands.
15. The documents under Exs.A-4 to A-10 are either orders of
the Reference Court or Awards of the Land Acquisition Officer or
the judgments of the High Court, pertaining to fixation of market
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
value of the acquired lands covered thereunder, which are
admittedly situated in Alampur.
16. Exs.A-4 to A-6 are the orders passed by the Reference
Court whereby it has fixed the market value of the subject lands
therein situated at Alampur, which were acquired for formation of
earthen embankment of protection wall.
17. Exs.A-7 to A-9 pertain to determination of market value
of the houses and house sites situated at Alampur, which were
acquired for the purposes mentioned therein, wherein the market
value of the properties was fixed on yardage basis.
18. In the instant case, even according to the appellants-
claimants, the acquired lands are agricultural lands, which were
fetching income therefrom.
19. Therefore, from the above analysis, it is evident that the
lands/properties covered under Exs.A-4 to A-9 are all situated in
Alampur town or within the limits of Alampur Mandal and the
purpose of acquisition of the said properties and the nature of the
said properties are distinct from the lands under acquisition in the
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
present case. As such, reliance cannot be placed on the said
documents for fixing the market value of the present acquired
lands.
20. Coming to Ex.A-10, it is a sale deed, dated 11.01.1975,
whereunder house site admeasuring 20 square yards at Alampur
was sold @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard. This document cannot form
basis for determination of market value of the acquired lands for
two reasons; firstly, the property covered thereunder is situated at
Alampur, whereas the acquired lands are situated at Dharoor
Village and Mandal, secondly, the acquired land in the instant case
is a large chunk of land i.e., Acs.11.22 guntas, when compared to
the land covered under Ex.A-10, i.e., very small extent of 20 square
yards. Therefore, Ex.A-10 cannot be taken as comparable sale for
the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands
and accordingly, Ex.A-10 is discarded. It is appropriate to refer to
catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., Special
Deputy Collector Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao 1, State of J & K Vs.
AIR 1997 SC 2625
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
Mohammad Mateen Wani2, Bhim Singh Vs. State of Harayana 3
and Atma Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Haryana 4,
wherein it is held that the method of relying on price of small plots
in order to fix value of large extents is not proper.
21. Ex.A-11 pertains to judgment of the High Court,
whereunder the market value of the lands situated in Gadwal town
was determined. The distance from Dharoor Village to Gadwal
town is 10 kms. Therefore, Ex.A-11 cannot be relied upon for
fixing the market value of the acquired lands.
22. Ex.A-12 is the judgment rendered by High Court,
whereby the Appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer was
dismissed. The said judgment is bereft of any particulars like the
extent, location and nature of the property acquired and the purpose
of acquisition of the property covered therein. Similar is the case
with Ex.A-13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said
documents cannot be looked into nor they support the claim of the
appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation.
AIR 1998 SC 2470
(2003) 10 SCC 529
(2008) 2 SCC 568
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
23. Coming to Ex.A-14, it is a registered sale deed,
whereunder the father of P.W-6 sold an extent of 20 square yards
of house situated at Dharoor Village for Rs.1,000/-. However, the
topography marked as Ex.A-1 coupled with the evidence of P.W-7-
Licensed Surveyor goes to show that subject property of Ex.A-14
is far away from the acquired lands and further, neither Ex.A-1 nor
the evidence of PW-7 reveal the approximate distance between
property covered under Ex.A-14 and the acquired lands. Therefore,
the reasons as were given for discarding Ex.A-10 hold good for
discarding Ex.A-14.
24. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that though voluminous documentary evidence,
vide Exs.A-1 to A-14 was adduced by the appellants-claimants to
buttress their claim for enhancement of compensation, the same
cannot be relied upon by this Court for the reasons stated in the
foregoing paragraphs.
25. A perusal of the Award dated 26.04.1979 passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer discloses that he classified the land under
acquisition into two categories basing on their location. The
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
acquired lands which are located within a distance of ½ km from
the village i.e., in Sy.Nos.812, 815, 1, 2 and 35 are categorized
under group 'A' and the acquired lands which are located beyond
½ km from the village, i.e., in Sy.Nos.34, 44, 45, 46 and 47 are
categorized under group 'B'.
26. The Land Acquisition Officer, on due analysis of the sale
transactions that have taken place during the relevant period, by
observing that sale deed No.2190/77 dated 05.11.1977 pertains to
land located closely to the village as well as the acquired lands,
adopted the said sale deed and fixed the market value @ Rs.900/-
per acre for group 'A' lands.
27. Insofar as group 'B' lands are concerned, the Land
Acquisition Officer with an observation that the land covered by
sale deed No.384, dated 17.04.1975, is a bit away from the village,
adopted the sale deed for fixing the market value of group 'B'
category lands @ Rs.600/- per acre.
28. Thus, from a perusal of Ex.B-1-Award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, it is evident that he has meticulously examined
11 AKS, J & LNA, J
the sale transactions of the relevant period and has fixed just and
proper compensation for the acquired lands.
29. In view of the foregoing reasons in the above paragraphs,
this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has not
committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned
order confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer through Ex.B-1-Award. Hence, this Appeal fails and is
liable to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
30. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:02.09.2024
dr
