Telangana High Court
Special Deputy Collector vs K. Jagadeeshwar, Mahabubnagar Dist ... on 28 September, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
L.A.A.S.Nos. 599 of 2017 and 50 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridevi) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since L.A.A.S.No.599 of 2017 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2021 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very same common order, dated 13.04.2017 passed in O.P.No.7 of 2011 and batch on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Gadwal (for short "the reference Court"). By the impugned common order, the reference Court, in respect of the market value of the acquired land, has uniformly enhanced to Rs.385/- per square yard from Rs.64,500/- per acre for dry land and Rs.74,500 per acre for irrigated dry land and Rs.89,500/- per acre for wet lands, as awarded by the L.A.O.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the lands belonging to the claimants were acquired by the Government for the purpose of excavation and formation of embankment of parallel canal to Priyadarshini Jooral Project (LMC) by issuing draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 2 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 "the Act") on 04.08.2009 followed by draft notification. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award under Ex.B1 fixed the market value of the acquired land on 27.03.2010 fixing the market value of the acquired land as indicated above. Having received the compensation under protest, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value. Initially, the reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.25/- per square meter. When the claimants approached this Court by way of L.A.A.S.No.413 of 2014, this Court by judgment dated 27.04.2016, remanded the matter to the reference Court to dispose of the reference afresh holding that proper appreciation of evidence on record in arriving at the market value was not done by the reference Court. On such remand, the reference Court after duly analyzing the evidence brought on record, has uniformly enhanced the market value to Rs.385/- per square yard from Rs.64,500/- per acre for dry land and Rs.74,500 per acre for irrigated dry land and Rs.89,500/- per acre for wet lands, as awarded by the L.A.O. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, while the L.A.O. preferred L.A.A.S.No.599 of 2017 the claimants filed L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2021 seeking further enhancement of compensation. 3
GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021
3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals and learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Perused the material available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants, appellants in L.A.A.S. No. 50 of 2021 submits that the reference Court has erroneously fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.385/- per square yard without taking into consideration the sale deeds covered by Exs.A.6 to A.10. It is contended that the land was converted from agriculture purpose to non-agriculture purpose; in fact, the lands acquired were used for commercial purpose; that the lands were situated at Mandal Headquarters and has all amenities like educational institutions, hospitals, post office, cinema theatres, market yard etc., and therefore, the reference Court ought not to have deducted 30% towards developmental charges. It is contended that when various sale transactions are available with different sale considerations, the one which is higher should have been taken into consideration. When Ex.A10 is available reflecting the market value in the vicinity at Rs.1210/- per square yard, which is just six months before the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the reference Court has wrongly relied upon Ex.A8 whereunder the 4 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 sale consideration was shown as Rs.550/- per square yard, which pertains to one and half year prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is further contended that the proximity of time and the proximity of location of the land covered by Ex.A10 is comparable to the present acquired land. It is lastly contended that the reference Court ought not to have discarded Ex.A10, sale transaction on the mere ground that smaller extent of land was sold thereunder. In this regard, it is contended that when there is no comparable sale transaction to that of the larger extent of land is available, there is no bar for the Court to take into consideration even the sale consideration pertaining to smaller extent of land. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to enhance the market value of the acquired land basing on Ex.A10, sale transaction.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the reference Court has erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land at an abnormal rate of 1550% for three categories of land than the one awarded by the L.A.O. without there being any proper evidence. It is contended that the reference Court ought not to have relied upon the sale 5 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 transaction covered by Ex.A8, whereunder small piece of land to an extent of 223 square yards was sold whereas the present acquired land is more than twelve acres. It is further contended that when the Court is granting compensation for the acquired land in square yard basis, it is not proper for the learned counsel for the claimants to contend that there should not be any deduction towards developmental charges and therefore, the reference Court was right in deducting 30% towards developmental charges. It is lastly contended that inasmuch as similar exemplar sales are available, it is not proper for the reference Court to take into consideration the sale transaction, whereunder smaller extent of land was sold.
6. In order to prove their claim that the acquired land would fetch Rs.1000/- per square yard, the claimants apart from examining P.Ws.1 to 10, got marked Exs.A6 to A10, sale transactions, which are within three years prior to the date of notification. Out of them, Ex.A8 relates to plot in Atmakur Town, whereunder sale consideration for an extent of 223.88 square yards was sold for Rs.1,23,550/- which works out to Rs.550/- per square yard. Inasmuch as the acquired land is also situated within Atmakur town, the reference Court basing 6 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 on Ex.A8 has fixed the market value at Rs.550/- per square yard and after deducting 30% towards developmental charges fixed the net value of Rs.385/- per square yard. However, under Ex.A10, sale transaction, the land to an extent of 44.44 square yards situated in Atmakur town itself, was sold for Rs.54,000/- which works out to Rs.1210/- per square yard. But the reference Court did not take into consideration the sale transaction under Ex.A10 on the ground that the same pertains to a small piece of land. If the same analysis is applied, the reference Court was not right even in taking into consideration Ex.A8, whereunder only an extent of 223.88 square yards was sold, which is very small when compared with the size of the acquired land.
7. In Chinmanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition1, the Apex Court at para 4 held as under:-
"Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects....(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle"
1
(1988) 3 SCC 751
7
GSD, J and MGP, J
Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021
8. As seen from the evidence, Ex.A10 pertains to six months prior to the issuance of notification, where as Ex.A8 pertains to one and half years prior to the issuance of notification. Though the proximity of situation of land under Exs.A8 and A10 is similar, but proximity of time is more appropriate to Ex.A10 when compared with Ex.A8. Thus, the reference Court ought to have relied on Ex.A10 instead of Ex.A8 for fixation of the market value of the acquired land.
9. As regards the rejection of Ex.A10 and other sale transactions by the reference Court, in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others2 the Apex Court held that "When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition." Since among Exs.A6 to A10, the sale consideration under Ex.A10 being highest one, the reference Court ought to have fixed the market 2 (2012) 5 SCC 432 8 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 value of the acquired land basing on Ex.A10. It is also settled law that when comparable exemplar sale is not available, even a sale transaction in the same locality which pertain to small extent can also be relied upon for fixation of the market value. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the reference Court ought not to have deducted 30% towards developmental charges in view of the conversion of land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that when the compensation is awarded under square yard basis, it is appropriate to deduct 30% towards developmental charges considering the nature and potentiality of the land. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the market value of the acquired land from Rs.550/- per square yard to Rs.1,000/- and after deducting 30% towards developmental charges therefrom, the net value is fixed at Rs.667/- per square yard.
9. In the result, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the L.A.O. i.e., L.A.A.S.No.599 of 2017, we allow L.A.A.S.No.50 of 9 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 2021 preferred by the claimants, fixing the net market value of the acquired land at Rs.667/- per square yard together with all other statutory benefits as per the amended Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________ G. SRI DEVI, J _______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 28.09.2022 gkv/tsr 10 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50_2021 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI L.A.A.S.Nos. 599 of 2017 and 50 of 2021 Date: 28.09.2022 gkv/tsr