Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V.Kishan Rao, S/O.Laxmikantharao, ... vs 1.Lao & Spl. Deputy Collector, L.A. ... on 15 February, 2018
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
LAAS.No.366 of 2007
15-02-2018
V.Kishan Rao, S/o.Laxmikantharao, Aged 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kamanpur Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District A
1.LAO & Spl. Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, S.C. Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani 2. The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co. L
3. Bollapalli Narsaiah S/o.Ellaiah & 68 others Respondents/Respondents/Claimants (R.3 to R.71 are not necessary parties to
Counsel for Appellant/Claimant No.41: Mr. Y.Rama Rao
^Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.: Spl. GP for
Addl. AG (Telangana)
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2013(1) Decisions Today (SC) 300
2. 2014(5) ALD 531 (DB)
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 (LAAS MP Nos.658 & 659 of 2011)
in/and
L.A.A.S.No.366 of 2007
and
L.A.A.S.No.585 of 2007
Common Judgment: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
While LAAS No.366 of 2007 is by claimant No.41, LAAS
No.585 of 2007 is by the Singareni Collieries Company
Limited for whose benefit the land was acquired in terms of
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Both these
appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, questioning the correctness of the judgment of the
Reference Court under Section 18.
2. Heard Mr. Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant and the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the Singareni Collieries Company Limited.
3. By a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act
on 08-3-1990, the lands of the extent of about 101.30 acres
in Survey Nos.83, 85/2&3, 86 to 91, 95 to 99/A&B, along
with the structures, wells and trees in Mulkalapalli Village of
Kamanpur Mandal were acquired for the purpose of
construction of residential quarters for the workmen of
Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The possession of the
lands was taken by invoking the emergency clause,
on 06-6-1990 itself.
4. After taking note of 8 sale transactions that had
taken place within three years immediately before the date of
the Notification under Section 4(1), the Land Acquisition
Officer (LAO) passed an award bearing Award No.3/1992,
dated 29-3-1992, fixing the compensation at Rs.8,500/- per
acre for dry lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry cum wet
lands. He also fixed the value of wells at Rs.13,950/- per well
and a sum of Rs.77-60 ps. per tappable sendhi tree, Rs.8/-
per untappable sendhi tree and 0.25 ps. per bush.
5. The land owners sought reference and the reference
was taken on file in O.P.No.26 of 2001. Before the Reference
Court, there were 70 claimants. A claim statement was filed
by claimants 1 and 2 which was adopted by claimants 3, 7 to
10, 12, 13, 41 to 49 and 62 to 64. Claimants 18 and 20 filed
separate claim petitions which were adopted by claimants 4
to 6, 11, 14, 15, 17 to 27, 29 to 31, 33, 35 to 37, 39, 40, 50 to
55, 57, 58, 60, 61 and 65.
6. Before proceeding further, it must be recorded here
that the appellant in LAAS No.366 of 2007 was the
41st claimant before the Reference Court. He did not file
an independent claim statement, but he adopted the claim
statement filed by claimants 1 and 2. Similarly, he did not get
into the witness box. Only four persons were examined on the
side of the claimants. Out of them, P.W.1 alone was one of the
70 claimants. Other three witnesses were not claimants but
third parties.
7. The claimants filed five documents as exhibits.
Exs.A-1 to A-3 were the certified copies of the registered sale
deeds dated 20-01-1986, 09-5-1988 and 21-4-1988.
The estimation of the wells belonging to claimant No.1 and
claimant No.7 were filed as Exs.A-4 and A-5.
8. The Special Deputy Tahsildar was examined as
R.W.1. The Estate Manager of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,
was examined as R.W.2. The Deputy General Manager of the
Company was examined as R.W.3. The copy of the award was
filed as Ex.B-1. The certified copies of three sale deeds on the
basis of which the LAO passed the award were marked as
Exs.B-2 to B-4. The Village Plan was marked as Ex.B-5.
The estimates of the wells were marked as Exs.B-6 and B-7.
9. On the basis of Ex.A-1, which related to the sale of
a land in Survey No.87, the Reference Court came to the
conclusion that the market value of the land could be fixed at
Rs.20,000/- per acre. Exs.A-2 and A-3 were rejected by the
Reference Court on the ground that both of them related to
Kalvacherla Village, which is only a village adjoining
Mulkalapalli Village, in which the acquired lands were
situate. The Reference Court also fixed the market value of
dry cum wet land at Rs.25,000/- per acre.
10. Contending that the award of compensation at
Rs.20,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.25,000/- per acre
for dry cum wet lands is on the higher side, the LAO has
come up with LAAS No.585 of 2007. On the contrary,
contending that the market value of the lands was
Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, the 41st claimant has come up with
the appeal LAAS No.366 of 2007.
11. It is relevant to point out that LAAS No.585 of 2007
filed by the LAO came up for hearing way back in the year
2008. Though what came up for hearing was only the
miscellaneous application for stay, a Division Bench of this
Court took the appeal itself for consideration and allowed the
appeal of the LAO by judgment dated 18-4-2008, reducing the
compensation for dry lands to Rs.16,000/- per acre and for
dry cum wet lands to Rs.20,000/- per acre. 69 out of 70
claimants, who were parties in the reference before the
Reference Court, admitted the judgment dated 18-4-2008 in
LAAS No.585 of 2007 and have kept quiet. But the
41st claimant alone, came up with an application for review in
LAAS MP No.1 of 2018 on the ground that notice was not
served on him before the appeal was allowed. Though we
could have rejected the review application on the short
ground that the appellant in LAAS No.366 of 2007 did not
independently prosecute his claim before the Reference Court
but chose to ride only on the back of claimants 1 and 2,
we did not stand on technicalities and allowed the review
application, despite the fact that the judgment in LAAS
No.585 of 2007, dated 18-4-2008, had attained finality in
respect of 69 persons. It must be pointed out at the cost of
repetition that the appellant in LAAS No.366 of 2007 did not
file an independent claim statement and did not get into the
witness box before the Reference Court. He simply adopted
the claim statement filed by claimants 1 and 2 and he chose
to go by the evidence let in by the 1st claimant. Therefore, the
appellant had no case independent of the 1st and the
2nd claimants. Despite this hurdle, we allowed the review
application only on account of the fact that his own
independent appeal was also on file in this Court. Keeping
this factor in mind, let us now proceed to analyse whether
he has a claim for further enhancement over and above the
one ordered by the Reference Court.
12. Let us first take up the appeal of Singareni Collieries
Co. Ltd., in LAAS No.585 of 2007. The main ground on which
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., has come up with the above
appeal is that the LAO could not have relied upon Ex.A-1,
dated 20-01-1986. According to the learned Special
Government Pleader, the LAO rightly took note of the sale
deeds Exs.B-2 to B-4 and fixed the market value at
Rs.8,500/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre
for dry cum wet lands.
13. But we do not agree. The sale deed Ex.A-1, dated
20-01-1986, was executed at least four years before the date
of the Notification under Section 4(1) viz., 08-3-1990.
Therefore, it was not a document cooked up for the purpose
of seeking enhanced compensation. The land covered by
Ex.A-1 was in Survey No.87 of Mulkalapalli Village itself.
The lands acquired were in Survey Nos.83, Part of 85, 86 to
91 and 95 to 99. In other words, the land covered by Ex.A-1,
was actually a part of the very land acquired. Therefore, the
Reference Court was right in taking note of the value at
Rs.20,000/- per acre as reflected in Ex.A-1.
14. The Reference Court was right in rejecting Exs.A-2
and A-3, since they related to lands located in another village
viz., Kalvacherla Village. The Reference Court was also right
in rejecting Exs.B-2 to B-4, for two reasons viz., (a) that the
lands covered by Exs.B-2 to B-4 were in Survey No.130 and
(b) that it is reasonable to expect the LAO to take the best of
the transactions available on record. The best of the
transactions available on record was the one indicated in
Ex.A-1. While Exs.B-2 and B-3 relate to Survey No.103,
Ex.A-1 related to Survey No.87 which itself was acquired.
15. Therefore, the LAO was right in taking the market
value at Rs.20,000/- per acre on the basis of Ex.A-1.
The grievance sought to be made out by the Singareni
Collieries Co. Ltd., in their appeal LAAS No.585 of 2007 is
therefore unjustified, hence LAAS No.585 of 2007 is
dismissed.
16. Coming to the appeal LAAS No.366 of 2007 filed by
the 41st claimant, the claim of the appellant is for
compensation at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Unfortunately, the
appellant never went to the witness box to state the basis on
which he made a claim for Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Four
persons were examined on behalf of all the 70 claimants.
Ultimately only five documents came to be marked on the side
of the claimants. Three of them were sale deeds about which
we have already made a discussion while dealing with the
other appeal, Exs.A-2 and A-3 related to lands in another
village and hence the appellant could not have relied upon
Exs.A-2 and A-3. Exs.A-4 and A-5 were the estimation of
wells belonging to claimant Nos.1 and 7. In the appellants
land, there was no well and hence he is not concerned with
the same.
17. In other words, the only piece of evidence let in
before the Reference Court on behalf of the appellant in LAAS
No.366 of 2007, which had the correlation to the market
value of the land acquired from him was Ex.A-1 and hence
the Reference Court rightly took note of Ex.A-1 alone.
18. However, the appellant has now come up with two
applications in LAAS MP Nos.658 and 659 of 2011 seeking to
file two additional documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC.
The first is a sale deed dated 17-02-1990. This sale deed
relates to the sale of a land in Survey No.200 in Kalvacherla
Village. The land of the extent of about 423.5 square yards
was sold under the said sale deed on 17-02-1990 for a total
consideration of Rs.10,600/- at the rate of Rs.25/- per square
yard.
19. But this additional document No.1 sought to be
marked as additional evidence, cannot be taken into account
for the very same reasons on which we have rejected Exs.A-2
and A-3. As we have indicated earlier, Exs.A-2 and A-3 relate
to lands in Kalvacherla Village. The present additional
document No.1 also relates to a land in Kalvacherla Village.
Therefore, additional document No.1 is not of any use to the
appellant.
20. The 2nd additional document sought to be filed by
the appellant is an opinion given by a socalled expert, called
Sagar Earth Science Allied Services. This report is prepared
in January 2011, after four years of the filing of the above
appeal. This report is on the purported availability of coal and
clayey top soil potential in Survey No.88/A,B&C, Mulkalapalli
Village.
21. This report cannot be taken into account, for the
simple reason that the appellant ought to have taken such
a report even before the Reference Court and examined the
expert, so that the beneficiary Company or the LAO could
have cross-examined the expert. The date of 4(1) Notification,
to recollect, was 08-3-1990. The award was passed in March,
1992. The reference was disposed of in December, 2006.
The above appeal was filed in 2007 and the expert report is
taken in January, 2011. Therefore, the 2nd additional
document sought to be filed for establishing that there was
valuable subsoil mineral in the land of the appellant which
was acquired by the respondents, cannot be taken note of.
22. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Threesiamma Jacob v. Geologist Dept. of Mining &
Geology , it was contended by Mr. Y.Rama Rao, learned
counsel for the appellant, that wherever there is subsoil
mineral, the land owner could be taken normally to be the
proprietor of the minerals and that therefore the appellant is
entitled to a valuation of the same.
23. But even in the claim statement filed by claimants 1
and 2, which came to be adopted by the appellant herein,
there was no whisper about the availability of subsoil mineral.
Therefore, naturally no evidence was let in on this aspect
before the Reference Court. Today the appellant is seeking to
lead additional evidence without a pleading. Hence, the
judgment is of no assistance to the appellant.
24. Relying upon another judgment in Singareni
Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Devaraj Venkateshwar Rao , it was
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
another property acquired for the very same purpose, was
valued at Rs.90,000/- per acre and that this Court awarded
a compensation of Rs.one lakh per acre and that therefore the
appellant should have the benefit of the same.
25. But it is seen from the said decision that the land
that formed the subject matter of acquisition in that case was
in Adrial Village of Manthani Mandal in Karimnagar District.
The land in respect of which the present case is concerned,
was in Mulkalapalli Village. Therefore, for the very same
reasons that we rejected the sale deed relating to Kalvacherla
Village which is also adjoining village, the said judgment will
also have no application to the case on hand.
26. It is relevant to note that when a vast extent of land
is acquired from several adjoining villages, compensation
cannot be and need not be fixed at uniform rates for the lands
comprised in all the villages merely because the two villages
are located adjacent to each other. If compensation is to be
awarded at a uniform rate, no independent awards need to be
passed and no independent enquiries need to be conducted.
Therefore, the said judgment is of no assistance.
27. Therefore, the claim of the appellant in LAAS No.366
of 2007 for enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- per
acre cannot be sustained. If that is so, then the question that
arises is as to what should be correct amount of
compensation.
28. We have already approved in the appeal filed by the
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre
accepted by the Reference Court. But one small mistake was
committed by the Reference Court. The Reference Court went
by Ex.A-1 to arrive at the market value as Rs.20,000/- per
acre. While doing so, the Reference Court forgot one aspect.
The date of Ex.A-1 was 20-01-1986. The date of Notification
under Section 4(1) was 08-3-1990. A period of four years had
passed from the date of Ex.A-1. Therefore, the Reference
Court ought to have made a provision for enhancement of the
market value year after year. This lacuna in the judgment of
the Reference Court, needs to be corrected.
29. The learned Government Pleader expressed serious
reservations, on the ground that when 69 out of 70 claimants
have accepted the compensation fixed by this Court in LAAS
No.585 of 2007, this will open the flood gates.
30. But the flood gates theory cannot deter the Court
from fixing appropriate amount of compensation. If a land
owner is entitled as a matter of right to a particular
compensation, the Court should not get intimidated by the
fact that every other person would follow. Therefore, we are of
the considered view that the compensation as fixed by the
Reference Court should be enhanced appropriately, by
granting an increase year after year from the date of Ex.A-1.
31. The market value as reflected by Ex.A-1 dated
20-01-1986 was Rs.20,000/- per acre. If we take that there
would have been a 10% increase every year, there would have
been a 40% increase in the year 1990, when the Notification
was issued on 08-3-1990. Therefore, the amount of
compensation should have been fixed by the Reference Court
at Rs.28,000/- per acre. Accordingly, LAAS No.366 of 2007 is
allowed insofar as the appellant is concerned and the
compensation payable to the appellant is fixed at Rs.28,000/-
(Rupees twenty eight thousand only) per acre. He will be
entitled to all other statutory benefits as applicable in
accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in these appeals shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J. 15th February, 2018.