Telangana High Court
Chepyala Rajeshwar vs The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue ... on 28 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
L.A.A.S.No.60 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the appellants - claimants,
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.07.2011 passed in
O.P.No.09 of 2002 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the reference Court.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that on the requisition made
by the Executive Engineer, Super Thermal Power Station,
Ramagundam Division to acquire the lands in survey Nos.408 and
265 of Medipalli village for the purpose of construction of temporary
colony for the employees of Super Thermal Power Project,
Ramagundam, the Land Acquisition Officer has issued a draft
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 11.07.1980. The Land
Acquisition Officer took advance possession of the land on
25.11.1978 by invoking urgency provision. After conducting due
enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.2,000/- per
acre for dry lands and Rs.2,500/- per acre for dry-cum-wet lands.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an
application under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the
Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.
4. The reference Court has framed the following points for
consideration:
"1. Whether the market value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer for the land acquired is proper?
2. What statutory benefits can be granted?"
5. Before the reference Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and
Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. Based on the evidence
on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to
Rs.16,800/- per acre, apart from statutory benefits. Aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
6. Heard the submissions of Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel
for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the
respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
reference Court has awarded very meager compensation against the
claim of the petitioners though they are seeking Rs.80,000/- per
acre for wet-cum-dry lands. He further submitted that the reference
Court ought not to have deducted 1/3rd of the amount for fixing the
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
compensation for the land acquired on the ground of small extents.
He further submitted that when there are no comparable statistics,
the Court can rely upon sale with regard to small extents but which
was not followed by the reference Court. He further submitted that
escalation of price by 10% every year also was not considered by the
reference Court and that 12% of the additional market value was
also not considered by the reference Court, he therefore, prayed to
allow the appeal.
8. Learned respondents counsel has submitted that the
reference Court has correctly granted the compensation and that
there is no need to interfere with the order of the reference Court.
In fact the claimants were awarded more compensation than what
they are entitled to and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court
need any interference?
3. to what relief?
10. POINT NO.1:
a) Ex.A1 is relied upon by the claimants. A perusal of Ex.A1
reveals that claimant No.1 sold an extent of Ac.0-18 guntas of land
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
in survey No.265 for Rs.9,500/- which would come upto
Rs.21,000/- per acre. PW2 is the attestor of Ex.A1. The sale
transaction under Ex.A1 is in survey No.265, which falls in the
same survey number under which the present acquisition has taken
place, therefore, the land under Ex.A1 is held to be similar in nature
compared to the land that is acquired in the present case and the
transaction is dated 21.03.1978 and the notification in the present
case is dated 11.07.1980. The said sale deed can be safely relied
upon in the present case, since it is within the period of three years
prior to the date of notification.
b) RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that the power
houses of AP GENCO are situated at a distance of ½ KM to 1 KM to
the acquired lands. A perusal of Ex.B1 shows the sales statistics of
the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. It is pertinent to mention here that
the possession was taken in the year 1978 though the notification
was issued in the year 1980, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken
note of the said statistics.
c) A perusal of the statistics reveal that the transactions at
Sl.No.177 reveal that the land was sold @ Rs.80,000/- per acre and
the Land Acquisition Officer has to take the highest exemplar if it
has close proximity in time. The Land Acquisition Officer has not
considered the said sale transaction and he has assigned the reason
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
that on the local enquiry, he could collect the information that, the
sales are on small extents and are purchased for the purpose of
house sites or other than agricultural purpose on highest rate and
as such, the said sales are opined to be not genuine and cannot be
considered for market value and therefore, he has discarded the
said sales. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that, the present
acquisition was for building a temporary colony for the employees of
Super Thermal Power Project, Ramagundam, therefore, the said
reason assigned by the Land Acquisition Officer is not justifiable.
Thus, by taking into consideration all these facts, it is opined that
the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very meager
and the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and
the said facts were considered by the reference Court, which has
enhanced the compensation to Rs.16,800/- per acre. The reference
Court has also considered the escalation of 10% per year, by
considering the decision of the High Court of AP in Land
Acquisition Officer, Chittoor v. P.Narsimhu Naidu 1. In the light
of the said judgment, the decision taken by the reference Court with
regard to escalation of 10% every year is opined to be just and
proper, thereby the market value of the land acquired is arrived at
Rs.25,200/- per acre, that needs to be awarded to the claimants in
this case. However, the reference Court has deducted 1/3rd from
1998 (1) ALT 88
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
the said price by holding that the transaction under Ex.A1 was for
small extent and while it is being applied to the land that was
acquired in larger extent, such deduction has to be made.
d) In Reddy Veerana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2,
it was held by the Apex Court that there is no strait jacket formula
to arrive at the quantum of deduction for development charge and
the same must be assessed based on the facts of the individual case
after due consideration of all the factors which might affect such
quantum and the deduction should not be done in a routine
manner. The Apex Court further observed that the general factors
that are to be taken into consideration for deciding the quantum of
deduction on development charges include the nature of land to be
acquired, the extent of area to be acquired, the extent of
development in the adjoining land as well as the land proposed to
be acquired, the commercial potentiality and so on. It has been
satisfactorily shown in the evidence on record that the land has
facilities of road and other amenities and it is adjacent to a
developed colony and that in such circumstances, it is suitable to
utilize the entire area in acquisition as house sites. Therefore, it
was held that the view adopted by the High Court in arriving at 50%
deduction was found to be improper and that the said deduction
was held to be unjustified.
(2022) 14 Supreme Court Cases 252
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
f) In Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal 3, it was held by
the Apex Court that the cases where the acquired land itself is fully
developed and has all essential amenities before acquisition, for the
purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure
for its development, falls under the purview of cases of "no
deduction". Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of
such instances where the compensation paid is comparable i.e.
exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed
acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases
where principle of "no deduction" may be applied.
g) Following the above said principles, it is held that 1/3rd
deduction made from the price assessed per acre is found to be
improper and that the reference Court could have fixed the price as
Rs.25,200/- per acre which is arrived at after enhancing the value
by 10% every year, by taking into consideration of the sale deed
under Ex.A1. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
11. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, the order
and decree of the reference Court, which awarded Rs.25,200/- per
acre is found to be reasonable but deducting 1/3rd from the price
assessed, is held to be improper. Therefore, the order and decree
(2011) 6 SCC 47
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.60_2014
passed by the reference court regarding compensation has to be
modified holding that an award of Rs.25,200/- per acre would be
justified. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
12. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and order and
decree dated 27.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.09 of 2002 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli are hereby set aside and
accordingly, compensation of Rs.25,200/- per acre is awarded.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date:28.03.2025
ns
