Telangana High Court

The Special Deputy Collector vs Dasari Ramana Reddy And 51 Others on 5 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.598 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing

for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer 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,

Ramagundam, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.04.2013

passed in O.P.No.137 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

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

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands to an

extent of Acs.11.06 guntas situated in the limits of Bhoopathipur

Village and an extent of Acs.4.21 guntas situated in the limits of

Dubbapet Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District,

belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired for the

purpose of laying of Pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam

Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that the Draft 2 AKS, J & LNA, J

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

A.P. Gazette on 15.10.2009; that after following the procedure

prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed an Award, dated 04.01.2011, granting

compensation @ Rs.1,30,000/- per acre, along with solatium and

other statutory benefits.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the

Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought

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

as O.P.No.137 of 2012 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/

claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were

marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined

and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.

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

record, treated both the categories of wet and dry lands as one

category and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre

from Rs.1,30,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. Challenging the

said order, the present appeal is filed.

3 AKS, J & LNA, J

7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for

Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court failed

to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly

referred to and analyzed the sale statistics pertaining to three years

preceding the date of 4(1) notification for fixing the market value

of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court erred in placing

reliance on Ex.A-1 which pertains to land situated far away from

the acquired lands while determining the market value of the

acquired lands; that the Reference Court erred in observing that the

Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation based upon

irrelevant documents, when the Land Acquisition Officer has, after

due enquiry and inspection of the sale statistics of Bhoopathipur

and Dubbapet Villages, has rightly determined the market value of

the acquired lands.

8. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the

Reference Court ought not have enhanced the compensation for the

pipe lines and open wells existing in the acquired lands basing on

Exs.A-3 to A-4, which were not proved by the respondents-

claimants and ultimately, he prayed to allow this Appeal.

4 AKS, J & LNA, J

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants

contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the

evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate

with the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking

into consideration the sale transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2,

rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands. He further

contended that the compensation granted by the Reference Court

towards pipe lines and open wells existing in the acquired lands is

fair and reasonable and therefore, the impugned order needs no

interference by this Court.

10. Before the Reference Court, the respondents-claimants have

marked Exs.A-1 and A-2-registered sale deeds. P.W.1-one of the

claimants and P.W-2-attestor of Ex.A-2 were examined, who

reiterated the contents of Ex.A-2. 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 abutting Rajiv State Highway. Even R.W-1

admitted that the acquired lands are abutting Rajiv State Highway 5 AKS, J & LNA, J

leading from Ramagundam to Hyderabad and they are very much

useful for construction of buildings as they are surrounded by

industries and other establishments.

11. From a reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the

Reference Court has minutely scrutinized Ex.B-1-Award and the

sale statistics mentioned therein and observed that the reasons

given by the Land Acquisition Officer in discarding certain sale

deeds mentioned therein are not genuine and trustworthy; that the

Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the sale transactions

pertaining to Bhoopathipur Village and Dubbapet Village on the

ground that they do not represent the true and real market value;

and further, the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and

choose method while adopting the sale transactions.

12. This Court, on perusal of Ex.B-1-Award, finds that the

lands around/or in the vicinity of the subject acquired lands were

sold for Rs.8,00,000/- per acre and the Land Acquisition Officer

has also referred to certain sale transactions pertaining to

Bhoopathipur and Dubbapet Villages, in which villages the

acquired lands are situated, whereunder the market value of the 6 AKS, J & LNA, J

lands are ranging from Rs.6,00,000/- per acre to Rs.13,33,333/- per

acre. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the said

sale deeds on unreasonable and improper grounds, as rightly

observed by the Reference Court in the impugned order.

13. As such, from the location of the subject acquired lands,

i.e., abutting the State Highway and also in view of admission of

R.W-1 regarding the said aspect, the acquired lands would

definitely have potentiality to be used for house sites, though they

are agricultural lands at the time of acquisition.

14. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that the

respondents-claimants have established that the acquired lands are

having high potentiality for house sites as they are abutting Rajiv

State Highway and as such, they fetch higher market value. So

also, it is borne from the record that the acquired lands are Bagaith

lands, red chelka soil rich in fertility and utility and they are

cultivated well with water through electric motor pump sets and

water from SRSP canal. Further, it was also stated that the acquired

lands are also double crop dry and wet lands.

7 AKS, J & LNA, J

15. To substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation

for the subject acquired lands, the respondents-claimants have

relied upon Exs.A-1 and A-2-registered sale deeds. Ex.A-1 is

registered sale deed, dated 28.06.2007, under which dry land

situated at Bhoopathipur Village was sold @ Rs.8,27,640/- per acre

and Ex.A-2 is registered sale deed, dated 23.12.2008, under which

dry land situated at Dubbapet Village was sold @ Rs.8,22,800/- per

acre. The respondents-claimants also adduced oral evidence to

prove the contents of Ex.A-2. Even otherwise, in the light of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition

Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs V.Narasaiah1, wherein it

is held that certified copies of the sale deeds could be considered

without examining persons connected with the transactions

mentioned therein, in the instant case, due credence can be given to

the documents-Exs.A-1 and A-2 and they can be safely relied upon

as representative sales. No evidence had been adduced by the Land

Acquisition Officer for creating any doubt regarding the bona fides

or genuineness of the said sale deeds. Therefore, the Reference

Court has rightly taken Ex.A-1 as an exemplar sale and after

2001(1) LACC 380 8 AKS, J & LNA, J

adding 12% escalation to the sale value mentioned therein, worked

it to Rs.10,51,000/- per acre. However, it proceeded to deduct 1/3rd

of Rs.10,51,000/- towards developmental charges and granted

compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre.

16. In the instant case, the subject acquired lands are

agricultural lands, which are acquired for the purpose of laying of

Pipelines under an Irrigation Project, therefore, the question of

deduction does not arise. This opinion of this Court is fortified by

the decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. RDO2, wherein it is

held as under:-

"If the land is acquired for purpose of house sites 1/3rd has to be deducted for roads and amenities. But this land is acquired for purpose of construction of water works reservoir and hence no deduction can be made."

17. Nonetheless, since the present Appeal is preferred by the

Land Acquisition Officer against the impugned order of the

Reference Court and no Cross-Objections are filed by the

1992 SCC OnLine AP 85 9 AKS, J & LNA, J

respondents-claimants in this Appeal, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order as regards the aforesaid aspect.

18. As regards the grant of compensation for the wells and

pipelines that were existing in the acquired lands, the respondents-

claimants have got marked Exs.A-3 to A-8-Estimates of valuation

for the pipe lines and open wells, which were prepared by G.D.

Architecture. As per Exs.A-3 to A-8, the value of pipe lines and

open wells existing in the subject acquired lands is three times