Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs Jupalli Damodar Rao, 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.592 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 12.03.2013
passed in O.P.No.38 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.13.20 ½ guntas situated in the limits of Garrepalli
Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to
the respondents/claimants were acquired for laying of Pipe line
under Moulana Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project
(Godavari); that the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 07.05.2010; that after
following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an
Award, dated 20.05.2011, granting compensation @ Rs.86,000/-
per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.96,000/- per acre for wet lands,
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.38 of 2012 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/
claimants, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 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.6,00,000/- per acre
for the acquired lands. Challenging the said order, the present
appeal is filed.
7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for
Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court erred
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
in granting uniform compensation for both wet and dry acquired
lands; that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that
the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the sale deeds pertaining
to three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification for fixing the
market value of the acquired lands and 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 followed pick and choose method while
determining the market value of the acquired land and ultimately,
the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
8. 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
to the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into
consideration the sale transaction under Ex.A-1, rightly enhanced
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the impugned
order needs no interference by this Court.
9. Before the Reference Court, the respondents-claimants have
marked Ex.A-1-sale deed, whereunder the land covered therein was
sold @ Rs.8,23,000/- per acre. P.W.1-one of the claimants and
P.W-2-attestor of Ex.A-1 were examined, who reiterated the
contents of Ex.A-1. 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 leading from
Ramagundam to Hyderabad. Further, Ex.A-3-photographs of the
acquired land show the existence of a school adjacent to the
acquired lands. As such, the location of the subject acquired lands
and their potentiality to be used for house sites, though they are
agricultural lands at the time of acquisition, are well established by
the respondents-claimants. Though the respondents-claimants
contended that by the time of acquisition, the subject acquired
lands were converted into non-agricultural purposes, no proof is
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
adduced in that regard. Therefore, the said contention of the
respondents-claimants merits no consideration.
10. 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.
11. A reading of the impugned order shows that the Reference
Court has scrupulously and minutely gone through the sale deeds
referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B-1-Award and
after analyzing the same, found that the Land Acquisition Officer
has rejected almost all the sale transactions of Garrepalli town on
the ground that they do not represent the true and real market value
for fixation of compensation for the acquired lands and further, the
Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and choose method
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
while adopting the sale transactions. The Reference Court further
observed that Ex.B-1-Award itself shows that many lands
around/near the acquired lands, i.e., within a distance of less than
½ km were sold for more than Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, however, the
Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the same on unreasonable
and improper grounds.
12. This Court, on meticulously scrutiny of Ex.B-1-Award, finds
that when sale transactions pertaining to the survey numbers, i.e.,
Sy.Nos.61 and 67 in which the subject acquired lands were
situated, are available and the same reflect the market value of the
said lands as Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, the Land
Acquisition Officer has ignored and discarded the same on
unreasonable grounds. Therefore, this Court concur with the
findings 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 undervalued
sale deeds when, admittedly, the sale transactions of higher market
value were available. Thus, this Court perceives the illegality and
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
irregularity in Ex.B-1-Award, which was rightly found fault with
by the Reference Court in the impugned order.
13. 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
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.
14. In the instant case, the respondents-claimants have
succeeded in proving that Ex.A-1-sale deed represents the highest
value prevailing in the market at the time of acquisition of the
subject lands by issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act. Therefore, in the light of the above cited judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the market value of the acquired lands has
to be fixed on the basis of Ex.A-1, whereunder the land was sold
@ Rs.8,23,000/- per acre. Though the Reference Court considered
(1984) 86 Petitioner & H LR540
AIR 1972 Madras 170
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
Ex.A-1 as a representative sale for fixing the compensation for the
acquired lands, without assigning any reason, has fixed the market
value of the acquired lands @ Rs.6,00,000/- per acre.
15. 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
respondents-claimants in this Appeal, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order as regards the aforesaid aspect.
16. With regard to the compensation granted towards wells and
trees situated in the acquired lands, the respondents-claimants
examined P.W-3 who prepared the estimates of the valuation of the
wells and trees existing therein. P.W-3 is a retired Municipal
Engineer and therefore, his evidence and estimates cannot be
brushed aside.
17. Here, it is apt to mention that in the instant case, there was
no capitalization of the value of land and structures on it and
therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRs and others Vs.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
State of U.P. 3, wherein it is held that when there is no
capitalization of the value of land and structure by the Land
Acquisition Officer in his Award, the claimants are entitled to
separate compensation for land, tube wells and structures, and also
on the basis of Ex.A-2-estimates, this Court finds justification in
the impugned order passed by the Reference Court in enhancing
the compensation towards the wells and trees present in the
acquired lands by 1 ½ times over and above the compensation
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the said
aspect needs no interference by this Court.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Appeal fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
19. As a sequel, interim order dated 04.10.2013 shall stand
vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:05.09.2024
dr
(2003) 10 SCC 525
