Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Special Dy. Collector (Land ... vs Panthangi Vidya Sagar Rao And Ors. on 28 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995(1)ALT649
JUDGMENT A. Gopal Rao, J.
1. A.S.Nos. 1446, 1447 and 1448 of 1985 have been preferred against the judgments passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.Nos. 29, 70 and 91 of 1983 respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer (Special Deputy Collector), Railways Nalgonda is the appellant in all the appeals. As a common question arises in all these appeals the same are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The lands belonging to the respondents-claimants situate at Chityal village acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of a nebroad guage railway tine from Bibinagar to Nadikude. The respondents-claimants in A.S.No. 1446 of 1985 claimed Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre towards compensation for the lands acquired; the respondents-claimants in A.S.No. 1447of 1985 claimed Rs. 1,30,000/-per acre towards compensation for their lands; and the respondents-claimants in A.S.No. 1448 of 1985 claimed Rs. 1,50,000/-per acre for themselves. In support of their claim the respondents-claimants exhibited three sale deeds, Exs.X-1 to X-3 respectively dated 6-12-1976, 20-6-1976 and 20-6-1976. The notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", was issued on 1-9-1977 and the lands were taken possession on 3-8-1977. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 1,010/- per acre in so far as the lands covered in A.S.No. 1447 of 1985 and 1448 of 1985 are concerned. So far as the lands covered by A.S.No.l446of 1985 is concerned, he categorised the lands into four categories viz., dry red chalka soil lands, dry-cum-wet lands, single crop wet lands and double crop wet lands. For category 'A', he fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,010/- per acre, for category 'B' at the rate of Rs. 2,060/- and for category 'C at the rate of Rs. 3,090/- and for category 'D' at the rate of Rs. 4,635/- per acre. Aggrieved by the awards the respondents-claimants submitted for reference Under Section 18 of the Act to the Court to fix proper compensation.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda taking into consideration the potential value of the lands acquired for future house sites, increased the compensation from Rs. 1,010/- to Rs. 48,000/- per acres for the lands covered in A.S.Nos. 1447 and 1448 of 1985. So far as the lands which are the subject matter of A.S.No. 1446 of 1985 are concerned, the categorisation of the lands done by the Land Acquisition Officer was accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge and compensation was increased for category 'A' from Rs. 1,010/- to Rs. 38,000/- per acre, for category 'B' from Rs. 2,060/- to Rs. 45,000/- per acre, for category 'C from Rs. 3,090/- to Rs. 50,000/- per acre and for category 'D' from Rs. 4,635/- to Rs. 55,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the increase in compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed these appeals. Dissatisfied with the increase in compensation, the respondents-claimants have also filed cross-objections claiming enhanced compensation.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellant has contended that the increase in compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is abnormal having regard to the fact that the lands acquired were agricultural lands and the purpose for which they were acquired was for laying New Broad-guage Railway line and not for house sites.
5. The learned Subordinate Judge, in enhancing the compensation, accepted the evidence led on behalf of the respondents-claimants and also noticed, after making a local inspection of the lands acquired, that those were more nearer to Cinema Hall, Saw Mill, Rice Mill, Gurudwara, Mosque, etc. and being of potential value for house sites having regard to the fact that they are nearer to the vicinity of the municipal area.
6. The sale deeds, Exs.X-1 to X-3 dated 6-12-1976, 20-6-1976 and 20-6-1976 pertain to sale of small extents of lands, viz., 4871 /2 sq. yards, 440 sqare yards and 440 square yards respectively, for house sites. So far as the lands covered by Exs.X-2 and X-3 are concerned, the rate works out to Rs. 72,600/- per acre whereas the rate of the lands covered by Ex.X-1 works out at Rs. 75,000/- per ' acre. The learned Subordinate Judge having regard to the fact that the lands have got future potential value for house sites fixed compensation at Rs. 48,000/- per acre for the lands which are the subject matter of A.S.Nos. 1447 and 1448 of 1985. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the sale deeds Exs.X-1 to X-3 for smaller extents of lands cannot be taken as sales of comparable lands for fixing the compensation at Rs. 48,000/- per acre. According to him if at all the compensation was to be enhanced, it could have been at best at the rate of Rs. 38,000/-uniformly for all the lands. It is on the other hand contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants that the learned Subordinate Judge did not take into consideration the potentiality for development of the lands and that the valuation fixed was unreal without having any relation to the evidence adduced. According to him since Exs.X-3 and X-2 were of the date 20-6-1976 and showed the lands to have been disposed of at the rate of Rs. 72,600/- per acre whereas Ex.X-2 showed the land to have been disposed of on 6-12-1976 at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre, there was evidence that the hike in land price within six months was around Rs. 2,400/-which in an year would have become around Rs. 5,000/-. Hence compensation should have been fixed at least at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre.
7. There is no dispute that the acquired lands have potentiality of development The judgment under appeal makes several references to such fact because of their location in urban areas with all the modem amenities of Cinema theatre, milk chilling centre, temple, mosque, etc., around and nearby it. The very fact that in the judgment the learned Subordinate Judge referred to such factors would go to show that he was very much alive to those considerations and taking an overall view of the matter fixed the compensation. It may be that while fixing the actual compensation he did not say in so many words that having taken the potential value into consideration the compensation was fixed, but the fact that he enhanced the compensation to much higher slab than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer would lead to the conclusion of the evidence having entered into his consideration.
8. Fixation of compensation for any acquired land is largely an act of estimation on the basis of evidence adduced. It is for the parties contesting, to lead evidence to serve as the basis for making the exercise. In the present case the three sale deeds are respectively only for 4871/2 440 and 440 square yards, viz., for about 1/10th of an acre or less. It has been held various times by the Supreme Court that the valuation of small patches of lands is no real Indicator of the price of the lands when the acquisition is for larger areas. This is so for the reason that while a higher price may be paid for smaller piece of land which may have peculiar or distinctive features like as abutting the road or having a special value for the purchaser, yet those factors would largely be absent in larger areas. Some part of the larger area may abut the road, but necessarily the other parts would be located beyond and as the distance of different portions of the land to the road increases, the prices would proportionately decrease. That apart to make the different parts of the acquired lands saleable, development programmes have to be undertaken like laying of roads, drainage system, providing electricity, entertainment, etc. The Supreme Court in Administrator General of W.G. v. Collector, Varanasi, held that deductions for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come upto as much as 53%. Thus even if the valuation of small pieces of land is taken into account, yet in deciding the valuation of larger areas, deductions are to be made for the developmental expenses, value of which may, depending upon varying facts, come upto even 53% or higher or less.
9. Where evidence is not coming forth directly as to the price of large areas of land in the area of acquisition and the Courts are called upon to determine the valuation on the basis of evidence which is inadequate, necessarily an element of best judgment-assessment is involved to make the valuation. Of course the valuation cannot be made in vacuum and necessarily also not arbitrarily but on cogent reasons and plausible inferences which must steer clear of any arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
10. Applying such principles to the present case we do not find the learned Subordinate Judge to have arrived at any untenable conclusion. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants that since Ex.X-1 shows a valuation of Rs. 75,000/- per acre and Exs.X-2 and X-3 shows valuation of Rs. 72,600/-there must be a conclusion that within six months there was a hike of Rs. 2,400/- per acre is unacceptable. Merely because a single sale deed has been exhibited showing certain increase, it could not necessarily be reason to come to finding of a hike. It is notorious that in contesting this type of cases the State is not as efficient as individual litigant. It could be that there may be different sale transactions in the same period showing either no escalation or less escalation of prices or even there might have been sales at lesser prices. Hence such argument must be eliminated.
11. Coming to the sale deeds exhibited, even the highest price therein is Rs. 75,000/- per acre. Even if 40% is deducted as the cost for potential development, the price of the lands becomes Rs. 45,000/-.The learned Subordinate Judge while granting Rs. 38,000/- for 'A' class lands has granted Rs. 45,000/- to 'B' class lands, Rs. 50,000/- for 'C class lands and Rs. 55,000/-for 'D' class lands. It is hence implicit that he has, while fixing the compensation, had the potentiality of development and developmental costs in view. We are also not impressed with the submission of the learned Government Pleader that compensation should have been fixed at Rs. 38,000/- when actual facts disclose higher valuation of lands. Hence taking all such facts into consideration we do not find any reason to interfere with the valuation as fixed in the judgments below.
12. There is no dispute that the respondents-claimants are getting the benefits Under Section 38 of the Act but the claim is made before us for being granted 12% more Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Since the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court we dispose of these cases with the observation that the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to such interest in accordance with the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court.
13. The respondents-claimants are also entitled for solatium at the rate of 30%.
14. In the result, the appeals and the memorandum of cross objections are dismissed but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.