Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs Ponaganti Muthyam Rao And 93 Ots 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.301 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant and Sri P.Devender, 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 Special Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition Officer), Huzurabad, challenging the order and
decree dated 08.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.50 of 1997 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Reference Court').
3. The brief facts of the case are that on a requisition made by
the Executive Engineer, Jammikunta, the lands belonging to the
respondents/claimants to a total extent of Acs.34.11 guntas situated
in the limits of Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages,
H/o Veenavanka Mandal, were acquired for excavation of 12L-R
IL to 12 to DBM-15 in the limits of Narsingapur and Kanaparthi of
2 AKS,J & LNA, J
Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District; that the draft
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P.
Gazettee on 07.05.1985; and that the Land Acquisition Officer,
after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed Award
No.15/87-88, dated 11.08.1987, fixing the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.4,000/- per acre.
4. The respondents/claimants received the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as O.P.No.50 of 1997 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the
respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 to
A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was
examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2-Award proceedings and Award,
respectively, were marked.
6. The Reference Court, on consideration of the evidence on
record, by the impugned order enhanced the market value of the
acquired lands to Rs.20,000/- per acre from Rs.4,000/- per acre,
3 AKS,J & LNA, J
apart from granting other benefits under the Act to the respondents/
claimants.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Reference
Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference
Court erred in relying upon Exs.A-6 and A-7, though the lands
covered thereunder are no way similar to the subject acquired
lands; and thus, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market
value of the acquired lands exorbitantly and therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
contended that the Reference Court has duly followed the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon Exs.A-6
and A-7 for determination of market value of the acquired lands
and as such, he prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
10. Based on the contentions of the learned counsel for both the
parties, the issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the
4 AKS,J & LNA, J
Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the
acquired lands based on Exs.A-6 and A-7.
11. To determine the market value of the acquired lands, this
Court has to look into and analyze as to whether the lands covered
under Exs.A-1 to A-8 are similar in nature and are situated in the
vicinity of the acquired lands so as to adopt the sale price
mentioned therein.
12. A perusal of Exs.A-1 and A-2-certified copies of order and
decree in OP.No.74 of 1996, on the file of the Reference Court,
respectively, goes to show that the lands covered thereunder are
situated at Bethigal Village and the Reference Court has enhanced
the market value of the acquired lands therein to Rs.35,000/- per
acre. Further, Exs.A-3 and A-4 are the certified copies of order and
decree in O.P.No.15 of 1997 on the file of the Reference Court,
respectively, pertaining to the lands acquired in Pothireddipet
Village. Under Exs.A-3 and A-4, the Reference Court has
enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands therein to
Rs.50,000/- per acre.
5 AKS,J & LNA, J
13. Similarly, Ex.A-5 is a registered sale deed with regard to
land situated in Bethigal Village.
14. Admittedly, Bethigal and Pothireddipet Villages are in
Veenavanka Mandal, so also the subject acquired lands situated in
Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages are in Veenavanka Mandal.
The respondents-claimants except contending that Narsingapur and
Kanaparthy Villages are adjacent to Bethigal Village, did not
choose to produce the topography of Veenavanka Mandal to prove
the same. Further, it is not the case of the respondents-claimants
that there are no sale transactions that took place in Narsingapur
and Kanaparthy Villages and that the lands covered under Exs.A-1
to A-5 are adjacent to the subject acquired lands.
15. To decide as to whether the said documents-Exs.A-1 to A-5
can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of
the acquired lands, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Deputy Collector Vs.
E.Jaggareddy and others 1 , wherein it is held as follows:-
1992(2) ALT 578 (D.B)
6 AKS,J & LNA, J
"The sale transactions mentioned in the Award and if the
documents are not marked, the Court is not entitled to take
note of such document and it is only the document
mentioned in the Award, that are marked, the Court is
competent to look into those documents."
16. In the instant case, it is to be noted that though in Ex.B-2-
Award, there was mention of the sale transactions pertaining to the
subject villages, the respondents-claimants did not chose to
produce any of the sale transactions with regard to the subject
villages and on the other hand, they sought to rely upon Exs.A-1 to
A-5 which pertains to different villages. Therefore, in the light of
the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Exs.A-1 to A-5
cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of
the subject acquired lands.
17. Coming to Exs.A-6 to A-8, it is evident that in Exs.A-7 and
A-8-certified copies of order and decree in O.P.No.4 of 1996,
dated 10.09.1996, the Reference Court by relying upon Ex.A-6,
fixed the market value of the acquired lands therein @ Rs.16,000/-
per acre. Admittedly, the land covered under Ex.A-6 is situated at
Valbapur Village, whereas the acquired lands are situated at
Narsingapur and Kanaparthy Villages. But, as seen from Ex.B-2-
7 AKS,J & LNA, J
Award, it appears that while referring to the sale deeds for
adopting the price mentioned therein as market value of the subject
acquired lands, the sale deeds relating to Valbapur Village were
also mentioned therein, which implies that the subject acquired
lands are in the vicinity of Valbapur Village.
18. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals admitted that
against the orders covered under Exs.A-1, A-3 and A-7 i.e., the
orders passed in O.P.Nos.74 of 1996, 15 of 1997 and 4 of 1996,
respectively, no appeals were preferred before the High Court.
19. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in E.Jaggareddy's case (cited supra), Ex.A-7-
order passed in O.P.No.4 of 1996 which pertains to fixation of the
market value of the lands acquired in Valbapur Village, basing on
Ex.A-6, and which order remained unchallenged before the High
Court, can be relied upon for fixation of market value of the
acquired lands.
20. Further, the Reference Court observed that though the
Land Acquisition Officer referred to sale transactions of which the
highest sale price was Rs.12,000/- per acre, without assigning any
8 AKS,J & LNA, J
reasons, discarded the said transaction and fixed the market value
of the acquired lands @ Rs.4,000/- per acre basing on some
least/undervalued sale transactions, which is grossly illegal.
21. As regards the categorization of the acquired lands into
two categories and awarding different compensation for each
category, it is to be seen that though it was the case of the
respondents-claimants that the acquired lands are fertile and they
used to raise commercial crops and further, as the acquired lands
are adjacent to village, they have potentiality for house sites, in the
absence of any proof in the form of adangal, etc., to show the
nature of the acquired lands, the said contention of the
respondents-claimants deserves no merit. However, in the opinion
of this Court, in the interest of justice and to have uniformity, the
Reference Court had rightly treated the two categories as was
divided by the Land Acquisition Officer into one category and
accordingly, granted the same compensation for all the acquired
lands.
22. Regarding the escalation given by Reference Court, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, and as Ex.A-6 pertains to sale
9 AKS,J & LNA, J
deed of the year 1982, whereas, the draft notification under Section
4(1) of the Act in the instant case was published in the year 1986,
reasonable escalation has to be given while fixing the market value
of the acquired lands basing on Ex.A-6. Therefore, taking into
consideration the said fact and also the possibility of increase in
the price of land by passage of time, the Reference Court has
rightly escalated the value @ Rs.1,000/- per annum and fixed the
market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.20,000/- per acre, which
in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference.
23. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is
liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:05.09.2024
dr
