Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Land Acquisition Officer, Tenali vs Kanneganti Suseela on 21 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)ALD458, 1998(2)ALT435
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.
1. The appellant is the Land Acquisition Officer who questions the order of the Civil Court made on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in O.P.No.193 of 1984 dated 9-10-1987, whereunder the Civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 18,000/-to Rs.65,000/- per acre.
2. An extent of Ac.2-14 cents in Survey Nos.235/2 and 238 situated within the Municipal limits of Tenali Town belonging to the respondent was acquired for purpose of burial ground in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 19-10-1978. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 27-11-1983 fixed the compensation at Rs.18,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the same, the respondent sought for reference before the Civil Court, which on consideration of the evidence on record, enhanced the same to Rs.65,000/-per acre.
3. The claimant did not examine anybody, except herself as PW1. Of course, she filed Ex.A1 registration extract of sale deed dated 8-3-1977 to show that an extent of 484 Sq.yards in Survey No.246/1 was sold for a sum of Rs.7,260/-, thereby the respondent attempted to establish her claim that the land in the vicinity was being sold at the rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre. However neither the vendor nor the vendee under Ex.A1 was examined to prove the contents of the sale deed, Ex.A1. The appellant examined two witnesses viz., Revenue Inspector and Junior Assistant working in Sub-Collector's Office as RWs. 1 and 2 respectively. RW2 produced Exs.B6 and B7 extracts of registered sale deeds dated 6-10-1976, one in respect of a sale transaction of 40 cents in Survey No.426/IC for a sum of Rs.6,000/- to show that the market value of the land in the vicinity is around Rs. 15,000/- and another of an extent of 53 cents sold for a sum of Rs.7,950/-, in order to show that the same are comparable sales and the prevailing market value is not more than Rs. 15,000/- per acre.
4. The learned Government Pleader contends that the learned Subordinate Judge has erroneously placed reliance on Ex.A1, registration extract of the sale deed, even though none of the persons connected with the said sale was deed examined to prove the contents of the said sale deed, and therefore, Ex.A1 should be eschewed from consideration. If so eschewed, there is nothing on record to show that the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is low or unreasonable.
5. Sri P. Suresh, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is based on the evidence on record, and therefore, the same cannot be assailed, and in any event, as Ex.A1 was already filed, an opportunity should be given to the respondent to enable him to examine the persons connected with Ex.A1 by remanding the matter.
6. The learned Government Pleader relying on K. Krishna Reddy v. Spl Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit II, submits that the appellate power of remand cannot be exercised lightly. It is relevant to extract the observations of the Apex Court:
"The appellate power of remand, at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhanced compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the appellate Court to do modest best to mitigate hardships."
In Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala, the Apex Court has again reiterated that the request of the appellant therein for remand to adduce additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be countenanced, as the appellant failed to adduce evidence though available when the matter was pending before the Civil Court.
7. It is now well-settled that the appellate Court has inherent powers to remand a case for fresh disposal. It is equally well-settled that the said inherent power has to be sparingly exercised as it is not an unfettered or unbridled power, but it should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice. Order 41, Rule 23 C.P.C. enjoins power on the appellate Court to remand the case if the suit was decided on a preliminary point and the said decree is reversed in appeal. When the case is remanded, the trial Court would register the suit under its original number and proceed to determine as directed by the appellate Court, and the evidence already recorded during the original trial shall be the evidence during the trial after remand also. Rule 23(A) which is inserted by Act 104/76 with effect from 1 -2-1977 speaks of the same power of the appellate Court even in respect of cases disposed of otherwise than on a preliminary point. Under A.P. High Court amendment to Rule 23 even after the decree is reversed in appeal on a preliminary point "where the appellate Court in reversing or setting aside the decree under appeal considers it necessary in the interest of justice to remand the case, it may order remand of the case." By this amendment discretion is vested in the appellate Court to remand the case if it considers just and necessary to do so in the interest of justice. In view of this High Court amendment, the appellate Court has ample power to remand the case provided it is satisfied that the interest of justice requires to adopl such a course.
8. The learned Counsel for respondent has cited a decision of the Apex Court in A.P. Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and another, , wherein compensation as awarded by the reference Court was reduced by the High Court since certain sale deeds though relied on for enhancement of compensation, neither the vendee nor the vendor of those documents were examined. The Supreme Court observing that in the absence of examining the vendee or the vendor of the document, the same cannot be relied on to determine compensation under Land Acquisition Act, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the reference Court to give an opportunity to the claimant to examine the persons connected with the said documents. We are of the view that this judgment applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. In the case on hand also, although Ex.A1 sale deed was filed, none connected with the said sale deed was examined. In the absence of Ex. A1, there is no other material to come to a just conclusion. In Agricultural Produce Market Committee by its Secretary etc., v. Land Acquisition Officer, , the Supreme Court while remanding the matter to the Civil Court, directed to receive the documents for the first time which were not produced either before the reference Court or High Court earlier in their discretion, as the documents are relevant for purpose of taking a just decision. Relying on these judgments of the Apex Court, and having regard to the fact that Ex.A1, sale deed was already filed, and if the said document is eschewed from consideration, there is total lack of evidence to determine the matter one way or the other we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the order under appeal should be set aside.
9. The matter is accordingly remitted back to the reference Court for fresh disposal, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us in the impugned order, after giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence, including examining persons connected with Ex.A1. Since we have remanded the matter for disposal afresh, the Court-fee paid shall be refunded to the appellant.
10. As the O.P. is of the year 1984, and payment of compensation to the claimant is pending for all these years, we are of the opinion that the reference Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably before the end of April, 1998.