Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Mandal Revenue Officer And Anr. vs Sri Sri Sri Jagannadhaswamyvari Temple on 26 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)ALT278
JUDGMENT G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the Government against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam in O.P. No. 15 of 1987 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 30/- per square yard or Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
An extent of Ac. 21-81 cents of land belonging to Sri Jagamadha Swamy Vari Temple situated at Palakonda, Sirkakulam District was sought to be acquired by means of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") dated 18-2-1981 for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the Society at Palakonda. The Commissioner of Endowments, who is the Head of the Department of Endowments and who has control over the temple in question, by his letter D.Dis. M2/20537/80 dated 28-4-1980 agreed to the said acquisition of the temple land subject, however, to the condition of paying compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Due to some litigation connected with the said land, the acquisition could not be effected upto the year 1986. In the year 1986, certain portion of the land which is sought to be acquired was deleted from acquisition and set apart for some public purpose and an errata was published to that effect. The Land Acquisition Officer after due enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and basing upon a series of sale transaction during that particular period in that area, arrived at a conclusion that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per acre would be the reasonable amount of compensation for the temple land, though the Commissioner of Endowments has categorically agreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. He accordingly awarded compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per acre.
3. Inspite of the written admission of the Commissioner of Endowments that their department would be satisfied if a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre is granted towards compensation, curiously however, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Executive Officer of the Sri Jagannadhaswami Vari Temple was examined as R.W.1 on behalf of the claimant and Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. Sri A. V. Ramana Murthy, the Deputy Tahsildar was examined as D.W.1 on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked.
4. The leamed Subordinate Judge, Rajam without considering the sale deeds that have been filed in the case, by taking into account the admission made by D.W.1, the Deputy Tahsildar, that in the year 1981, a square yard of house site fetched a sum of Rs. 50/- in that area, came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 30/ - per square yard would be the reasonable amount of compensation that can be awareded. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre was award towards compensation as against Rs. 15,000/- per acre granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam, the Government have preferred the above appeal.
6. The main contention put forth by the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant herein, is that since the Commissioner of Endowments, on behalf of his Department, has agreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards compensation, which fact was also spoken to by R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the claimant, the lower court was not justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- per are to Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre, (Rs. 30/- per square yard). It is to be borne in mind that the notification was made in the year 1981. At that time, the party receiving compensation has made an admission with regard to the compensation and it is binding on it. On the question whether the amendment to Section 25 of the Act is prospective or retrospective, there is some debate. But in this case, that question need not be answered, as on a previous occasion, in L.P.A. No. 184 of 1991 dated 23-3-1992, we approved this view take view taken by Ramaswamy, J., (as he then was) that the amendment brought to Section 25 of the Act is only prospective but not retrospective.
7. However, we would like to consider the evidence adduced in this case before the lower Court.
The Basic Value Register has been produced to prove the market value of the acquired land. In the said Basic Value Register, with regard to the market value of the agricultural land at that relevant period it is shown as Rs. 10,000/- per acre. With regard to the market value of the land for house sites, it is shown as Rs. 100/- per square yard. The land which is the subject matter of acquisition is admittedly an agricultural land and it was never kept in use for house sites. It is only for the purpose of providing house sites that the said agricultural land was sought to be acquired. For the purpose of providing house sites, the potentialities of the land for being converted into house sites also can be taken into considration at the time of awarding the compensation.
8. Exs.A.4 to A.9 are the sale deeds which relate to the sale of small extents of land in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987. None of the persons connected with those documents is examined to prove the sale consideration mentioned therein. The Supreme Court in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat, has laid down the principle that if a party wants to rely upon a document, the person or persons connected with the said document has/have to be examined in proof of the same. Since in this case, none of the parties to the aforesaid documents were examined to prove the transactions covered by those sale deeds, mere filing of the documents has no relevance for arriving at the reasonable market value for the acquired land based on the value of market price covered by the sale deeds filed. If we exclude Ex.A.4 to A.9, we are left only with the Basic Value Register. We find, as a principle, that the values given in the Basic Value Register cannot be taken guiding figures to arrive at the reasonable market rate for the land acquired. The values given in the Basic Value Register are fixed taking into account the block-wise area but not on scientific data. When the rates in the Basic Value Register have been fixed on area-wise without any scientific data, as already held by us, the values mentioned in the Basic Value Register cannot be treated as comparable values of market value at the relevant time. The values given in the Basic Value Register can at best be taken into consideration for the purpose of collection of stamp duty only at the time of registration of documents but not for any other purpose.
9. The learned Advocate-General submitted that in view of the admission of the Commissioner of Endowments with regard to the rate of compensation, they are estopped from claiming enhanced compensation by way of a reference Under Section 18 of the Act. We find no force in the submission made by the learned Advocate General. The claimant is at liberty to seek enhancement of compensation and the question of estoppel does not arise.
10. It we exclude the documentary evidence for the reasons stated supra, we are left with the oral evidence of the then Deputy Tahsildar as D.W.1. The admission of D.W.1 with regard to the value of the land at the relevant period is not binding. It is only a statement made by him without reference to any document. An admission made by a party without any reference to the documents with regard to the true value of the land acquired cannot be taken into consideration.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant requested for remanding the matter to the lower court for fresh disposal. We see no force in the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Koyappathodi M. Aisha Umma v. State of Kerala, holding that where the parties fail to adduce evidence, even though the same is available, remand cannot be ordered. In a case where the claimant fails to adduce evidence in support of his claim, the only alternative left for the court is to confirm the amount that has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. This is the principle that has been accepted by the Supreme Court also. In this case, as we found that the documentary evidence adduced before the lower court is not in any way relevant for the purpose of determining the reasonable rate of compensation and as there is no material placed before us to arrive at a different conclusion, we hold that what has been granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is a reasonable amount of compensation i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per acre.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam in O.P. No. 15 of 1987 and confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimant is entitled to all the benefits under the Amended Act i.e., 30% solatium, 12% additional market value and interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till date of deposit. No costs.