Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs Srigiri Malla Reddy on 30 October, 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.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016
and
Cross-Objections (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Since both the Appeals and the Cross-Objections in both the Appeals are filed challenging the common order and decree passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Kandi Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/cross- objectors.
3. LAAS.No.94 of 2016, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 16.04.2014 passed in respect of LAOP.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016
4. LAAS.No.98 of 2016, under Section 54 of the Act, is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 16.04.2014 passed in respect of LAOP.No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. In brief, the facts of the case in LAAS.No.94 of 2016, arising out of order passed in LAOP.No.34 of 2013, are that lands to an extent of Acs.14.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.335 and 336 of Chegurthy Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, belonging to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of laying of pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 03.11.2011; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 04.11.2011; after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, No.40/2011-12, dated 30.03.2012, fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.1,27,000/- per acre.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016
6. In brief, the facts of the case in LAAS.No.98 of 2016, arising out of order passed in LAOP.No.36 of 2013, are that lands admeasuring Acs.3.19 guntas in Sy.No.337 of Chegurthy Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, belonging to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of laying of pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 27.05.2011; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 28.05.2011; after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.20/2012-13, dated 19.02.2013, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,27,000/- per acre.
7. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the acquired lands in both the Awards sought references under Section 18 of the Act and the same were referred to the competent Civil Court and were numbered as LAOP.Nos.34 and 36 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court.
4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016
8. As the lands under acquisition in both the References are situated in same Village and are acquired for same purpose, basing on the Memo filed by the claimants and in order to avoid conflict of decisions, the Reference Court has clubbed both the LAOPs, recorded common evidence in LAOP.No.34 of 2013 and passed the common order, which is impugned in the present cases.
9. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants/cross-objectors, P.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked.
10. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, passed the impugned common order partly allowing the said LAOPs and thereby, enhancing the market value of the acquired lands in both the LAOPs to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, apart from granting all other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. The Reference Court has, however, confirmed the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for wells, trees, structures and pipelines that existed in the lands covered in LAOP.No.36 of 2013. Neither in the Appeals nor in the Cross-
5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 Objections, the issue as regards the compensation granted for the aforesaid structures was raised, therefore, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same.
11. Challenging the said common order passed by the Reference Court with regard to fixation of market value of the acquired lands, the present Appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer seeking to set aside the said common order and the Cross-Objections are filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court.
12. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer that the Reference Court erred in relying upon Exs.A-1 and A-2 which pertain to sale of small extents of land; that the Reference Court ought to have deducted 50% of the value reflected in Exs.A-1 and A-2 while determining the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court has not given cogent and convincing reasons for enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; and therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the impugned common order.
6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/cross- objectors contended that Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the acquired lands are fully developed and are non- agricultural in nature having been converted as such prior to acquisition; that the Reference Court erred in considering the fact that the acquired lands are adjacent to State Highway and are abutting Rajivrahadari leading to Hyderabad from Ramagundam; that Reference Court while relying upon Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds erred in not fixing the market value of the acquired lands based on the market value reflected in Exs.P-1 and P-2 and therefore, learned counsel sought for enhancement of market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Reference Court.
14. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Perused the entire material available on record.
15. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have marked Ex.P-1-sale deed, dated 02.01.2009, whereunder an extent of 544.5 square yards of land in Sy.No.258 of Chegurthi Village was sold @ Rs.6,71,200/- per acre and Ex.P-2-sale deed, dated 13.05.2009, 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 whereunder an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.301 of Chegurthy Village was sold @ Rs.8,70,000/- per acre.
16. One of the claimants by name Srigiri Malla Reddy got himself examined as P.W-1. He deposed reiterating the averments made in the Claim Petitions. He inter alia deposed that the acquired lands are abutting the State Highway which is leading from Ramagundam to Hyderabad; that the acquired lands are parallel and in periphery of Karimnagar; that number of houses and commercial establishments exist in the vicinity of the acquired lands; that the acquired lands are fully developed and have been converted from agricultural to residential purpose prior to acquisition; and therefore, the acquired lands have high potentiality for house sites and also for commercial establishments. He further deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed meager market value for the acquired lands.
17. The attestor of Ex.P-1-sale deed was examined as P.W.2. He deposed that the land covered under Ex.P-1 is abutting the acquired lands and that the acquired lands are situated ½ km from Rajiv Rahadari and as such, they have potential for conversion into 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 house plots as well as can be used for commercial purposes and therefore, the acquired lands fetch high market value.
18. 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 at a distance of ½ km from Rajiv Rahadari (Rajiv State Highway).
19. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that they categorically deposed that some part of the acquired lands are fields and in rest of the lands, there exist residential houses, petrol bunks, small industries and colleges in the acquired lands. This evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the material aspects like location, potentiality, nature, etc., of the acquired lands remained unchallenged.
20. Though it is the case of the claimants that by the time of acquisition, the subject acquired lands were converted into non- agricultural purposes, no proof is adduced in that regard. Therefore, the said contention of the claimants merits no consideration.
21. From the above, it is evident that the respondents-claimants have established that the acquired lands are having high 9 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 potentiality for house sites as they are situated at distance of ½ km from Rajiv State Highway and thereby, rendering them to fetch higher market value.
22. Further, it is to be noted that the subject lands in LAAS.No.94 of 2016 were acquired in pursuance of 4(1) notification published on 03.11.2011 and the subject lands in LAAS.No.98 of 2016 were acquired in pursuance of 4(1) notification published on 27.05.2011 and the acquisition in both the cases is for the same purpose in the same Village i.e., Chegurthy Village. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed Exs.R-1 and R-2-Awards fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.1,27,000/- per acre and Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, respectively.
23. This Court, on meticulous scrutiny of Ex.B-1-Award, finds that in Ex.R-1-Award, dated 30.03.2012, at Sl.No.41, sale transaction pertaining to land in Sy.No.335 was shown, which reflects the market value of the land covered thereunder as Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the said sale deed shown at Sl.No.41 on ground that the extent covered thereunder is small.
10 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016
24. Further, it is not out of place to note that the sale transactions of Chegurthty Village for the period from 11.11.2008 to 10.11.2011 referred to in Ex.R-1-Award are not mentioned in Ex.R-2-Award which is in respect of the same Village for the period from 22.05.2008 to 23.05.2011. In Ex.R-2-Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded that there are no sales from 13.05.2010 to 23.05.2011 in Chegurthy Village. This observation of Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R-2-Award is incorrect in the light of Ex.R-1-Award, whereunder in respect of same Village i.e., Chegurthy Village as many as 32 sale deeds were referred to for the period from 13.05.2010 to 23.05.2011. Thus, this Court believes that the Land Acquisition Officer has followed pick and choose method even in referring to sale transactions for the relevant period of three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification. This approach on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer is not appreciable.
25. In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, this Court holds that the claimants have succeeded in proving their case that the subject acquired lands are situated at a distance of 11 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 ½ km from Rajiv State Highway, and thus, have potentiality for commercial establishments, and that residential houses, petrol bunks, Engineering Colleges, Dhabas, etc., exist in their vicinity, which goes to show that the acquired lands are in fully developed area.
26. Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court concurs with the finding 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 sale deeds which reflect lesser market value, when, admittedly, the sale transactions of higher market value are available. Thus, this Court perceives the illegality and irregularity in Exs.R-1 and R-2-Awards, which was rightly found fault with by the Reference Court in the impugned order.
27. 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 1 (1984) 86 P & H LR540 2 AIR 1972 Madras 170 12 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 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.
28. In the instant cases, the subject acquired lands are situated in Sy.Nos.335, 336 and 337 and they are acquired for the purpose of laying pipeline. Therefore, it goes to show that the said survey numbers are contiguous.
29. In Ex.R-1-Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.335, which is one of the survey numbers in which the acquired lands are situated, is shown at Sl.No.41. The said sale deed is dated 29.12.2010 executed for sale of an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas of land for a consideration of Rs.1,62,500/-, which works out to Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.
30. Though in Exs.R-1 and R-2-Awards, sale deeds whereunder larger extents of land than the extent covered by sale deed shown at Sl.No.41 are mentioned, the said sale deeds are in respect of different survey numbers of Chegurthy Village. Also, it is to be noted that at Sl.No.42, sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.337/A 13 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 is shown, whereunder the sale consideration for an extent of Ac.0.06 guntas is Rs.1,98,000/-, which works out to Rs.13,20,000/- per acre. Though the said sale deed shown at Sl.No.42 pertains to one of the Survey Numbers in which the acquired lands are situated, the extent covered thereunder being very small i.e., Ac.0.06 guntas only, much credence cannot be given to the said document and accordingly, the same does not weigh with this Court for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands. Applying the same analogy to the sale deed mentioned at Sl.No.43, i.e., the extent of land covered thereunder being small i.e., Ac.0.05 guntas, the same is also not taken into consideration. The sale deed which reflects the next highest amount @ Rs.8,18,182/- is shown at Sl.No.48 in respect of land in Sy.No.338. However, as observed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R-1-Award, since the market value reflected therein is very higher compared to similar lands in the vicinity, the same also does not deserve any consideration. As regards the sale deeds shown at Sl.Nos.62 to 65, which reflect the next highest value i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, the same pertains to sale of house sites, therefore, the said sale deeds cannot be taken 14 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 into account for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands, which are admittedly agricultural lands. As such, the said sale deeds cannot be the basis for fixation of market value of the subject acquired lands.
31. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the abovementioned sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period i.e., three years prior to 4(1) notification, which are referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R-1-Award are not taken as basis for fixation of fair and reasonable market value of the subject acquired lands.
32. Even Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds relied upon by the claimants are pertaining to lands situated in Sy.Nos.258 and 301, respectively, which are situated at a distance of ½ km from the subject acquired lands.
33. In the above circumstances, it is apt to note that the Survey number covered by the sale deed shown at Sl.No.41 of Ex.R-1- Award and one of the survey numbers in which the acquired lands are situated are one and the same i.e., Sy.No.335 and therefore, the said sale deed can be safely considered for fixing the market value 15 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 of the subject acquired lands. Accordingly, the market value of the subject acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.
34. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court has committed error in fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands based on Exs.A-1 and A-2 and accordingly, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court.
35. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are dismissed and the Cross-Objections filed by the claimants are allowed in part, enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.
36. It is needless to say that the claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act on the enhanced market value fixed @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.
37. As a sequel, interim order dated 03.06.2016 in LAASMP.No.400 of 2016 and interim order dated 25.02.2016 in 16 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.94 & 98 of 2016 & Cross-Obj (SR)Nos.2378 & 2379 of 2016 LAASMP.No.215 of 2016 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:30.10.2024 dr