Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Valluri Veerabhadra Rao And Others vs Land Acquisition Officer And Spl. Dy. ... on 13 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD129, 1998(3)ALT27, 1998 A I H C 3497, (1998) 3 ANDHLD 129 (1998) 3 ANDH LT 27, (1998) 3 ANDH LT 27
Author: V. Rajagopala Reddy
Bench: V. Rajagopala Reddy
ORDER V. Rajagopala Reddy, J.
1. Since all these appeals arise out of the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') and the Award No.2/89, dated 28-2-1989, they are disposed of by a common judgment as under.
2. These appeals are directed against two separate judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, dated 10-2-1997, in two batches of O.Ps., the 1st batch comprising OPs. 150, 148, 151 and 157 of 1989 and the 2nd batch comprising OPs. 149 and 156 of 1989.
3. A total extent of Ac. 80.28 cts., was sought to be acquired in Ramanayyapeta village of Yeleswaram Mandal for submergeable area under Yeleru Reservoir Project, Yeleswaram. The total extent, however, involved in these appeals is Ac. 70.53 cts. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 6-9-1988. An extent of Ac. 40.56 cts., belongs to the claimants claiming each 1/4 share, in the first batch of OPs. They arc appellants in A.S. Nos.822, 825, 826 and 835 of 1997. An extent of Ac.29.97 cts., belongs to the claimants, claiming 1/2 share each, in the 2nd batch of OPs. against which A.S. Nos.824 & 828 of 1997 are filed. After following the procedure prescribed under law, the Land Acquisition Officer pass Ed Awand No.2/89, dated 28-2-1989. The total extent of Ac.70.53 cts land was categorised into 3 types, viz., Dry land with wet crops; Dry land with dry crops, and Waste land. For an extent of Ac. 67.34 cts., which was categorised as dry land with wet crop, the LAO granted Rs.20,000/- per acre towards compensation. Ac. 1.12 cts. was categorised as dry land with dry crop and an amount of Rs.13,000/- per acre was granted as compensation, Ac. 2.07 cts., was categorised as waste land and Rs.3,000/- per acre was granted as compensation. Solatium, additional market value and interest were awarded in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The L.A.O. also granted certain amount towards the value of the trees, arrived at on the basis of capitalisation method. Certain amounts were also granted towards the value of the structures found on the land. Not satisfied with the compensation, the claimants approached the Court below under Section 18 of the Act and the learned Subordinate Judge, in the judgments dated 10-2-1997, considering the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation as follows:
(i) Rs.30,000/- per Ac. for dry land with wet crops;
(ii) Rs.20,000/- per Ac. for dry land with dry crops;
(iii) Rs.15,000/- per Ac. for waste land.
Learned Subordinate Judge, however, negatived the claim for the enhancement of market value so far as trees and structures are concerned. Aggrieved by the judgments of the Court below, the appellants approached this Court in the present appeals.
4. Sri V.L.N.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that the entire land should have been classified as dry land with wet crop and a uniform rate should have been adopted and that there was no basis for categorisation of the land into 3 types and the value of the entire land should have been fixed at Rs.55,000/- per Ac. It is also contended that the appellants arc entitled for the compensation to the trees on the basis of capitalisation method and the Court below erred in not considering the Commissioner's report, which shows the total number of trees and the structures upon the land and their correct value.
5. Learned Government Pleader, however, resists the contentions and submits that the compensation awarded for the land, trees and structures was perfectly justified. It is further vehemently contended that the appellants arc not entitled for any compensation for the trees since the land was valued with reference to the trees that were found on the land and law is well settled that it is not permissible to value the trees separately.
6. There appears to be justification in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the entire land in question should be categorised as one type of land. There is clear evidence in the case that the entire land was well developed containing facilities for irrigation of crops and sugarcane plantation and paddy crops arc generally raised in these lands. The entire extent of land has thus been utilising for raising wet crops with the help of bore-wells. The land is, therefore, uniform in fertility and value. The entire land should be categorised as dry land with wet crops. There is no warrant to categorise further as has been done by the LAO. Accordingly the entire land should be categorised as one land and has to be valued as such.
7. The Court below has granted Rs.30,000/- per acre for the dry land with wet crop. It is the case of the appellants that the entire land should be valued at Rs.55,000/-per acre. It has come in evidence that for Yelem project during 1980-81 certain lands have been acquired, which were covered by Exs.B4 to B8, B10 and B11. The present notification is dated 6-9-1988. For the lands acquired in 1980-81, which were also situated adjacent to the lands in question, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted per acre, as compensation and the same was confirmed by the High Court under Ex.B11. The Court below, though the present acquisition is of recent years i.e., 1 years subsequent to the earlier acquisition, has granted Rs.30,000/- per acre as compensation for the dry lands with wet crops. It is contended that in view of the fluctuation values of the lands, a wcightage of 12% p.a. on the market value of Rs.30,000/-has to be added to arrive at the correct market value of the lands acquired in 1988. By applying the said principle, the market value of the lands would come to Rs.55,500 to 57,000/- per acre. There is sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The earlier notification was in 1981, whereas the instant notification is in 1988. It is common knowledge that the values of the lands in East Godawari District have been escalating year by year. Hence there is no warrant to fix the land values of 1981 to the value of the lands in 1988. Even taking 10% increase per year, the value of the lands would come to more than Rs.55,000/- per acre. Considering the fertility of the lands and other evidence on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the lands in question should be valued at Rs.55,000/- per acre. The compensation is accordingly enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per acre treating the entire land as one category.
8. It is evident from a perusal of the judgments of the Court below that the structures that were found on the lands in question were thatched kitchen sheds, cattle sheds, thatched houses and bore-well sheds. The L.A.O. having taken into consideration the rates prepared by the Dy. Executive Engineer, Housing, Kakinada, which were found reasonable and checked and cross-checked, accepted the same towards compensation of the structures and granted in both Rs.1,65,869/- out of total claim of Rs.5,00,518/-. At the instance of the appellants, the Court below had appointed an Advocate-Commissioner, who arrived at different rates to the above structures which are now sought to be relied upon by the appellants. But the Commissioner's report has no evidentiary value as the Commissioner has not been examined at all to prove his report. However, in view of the rates that were existing on the date of acquisition as compared to the rates fixed by the L.A.O. we are of the opinion that the structures should be valued in all the above appeals at Rs.2,50,000/ -. which should be Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of A.S. Nos.822,825, 826 and 835/97 and Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of A.S. Nos.824 and 828/97. The compensation for the structures is accordingly enhanced from a total of Rs. 1,65,869-44 ps. to Rs.2,50,000/-. (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousands only).
9. Adverting to the claim of the appellants for compensation for the trees found on the lands, it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel that the trees should be valued separately on the basis of the yield of the trees and they are also entitled for the value of the wood of some of the trees. The case of the appellants is that there are some fruit bearing trees on the lands and some trees like Neem trees, Black Babul trees etc., which are of the value for their wood and that they arc entitled for the compensation separately for the fruit bearing trees based on the capitalisation method and for the value of the wood for other trees and that the compensation for the above trees granted by the Court below was too low and arbitrary and should be enhanced as claimed by them in the claim petition,
10. Learned Government Pleader, however, resisted the contentions and seriously contended that the appellants were not at all entitled for the compensation for the trees separately and that the L.A.O. or the Court ought not to have granted compensation for the trees separately. It is his case that when once compensation for the land was granted taking into consideration the benefits out of the land, the claimants were not entitled for the value of die trees, and it would amount to granting compensation twice over for the same land.
11. In these appeals a total extent of Ac.70.00 was under acquisition. Though most of the trees are fruit bearing, they are few and found far and between. The trees comprise of coconut trees, Palmyrah trees, Jack trees, Guava trees, Sapota trees, Babul trees etc. The number of trees found on the land are few when compared with the vast extent of the land. Thus, it cannot be said that the land is an orchard where the land can be valued on the basis of the yield of the fruit bearing trees, which will be of the substantial value. In evaluation of the market value of the property comprising orchards there will be two units - One unit comprises of the value of the land and the buildings thereon and another unit the value of the fruit bearing trees standing thereon. It is, therefore, permissible in those situations to evaluate the market value of the land, by fixing its market value based upon the value of the land with all its advantages including its potential value or alternatively, taking into consideration the annual income of the fruit bearing trees multiplied by the appropriate capitalisation of number of years. But it is not permissible to determine the market value based upon clubbing both the values - vide decisions in Admn. General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, and Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala, .
12. Learned Government Pleader, relying upon the above decisions, therefore contends that the granting of the award of compensation for the trees separately to the appellants is illegal.
13. In the instant case it is seen that the total value of the fruit bearing trees including the value of the wood cannot bear any relation or comparison to the compensation granted basing upon the value of the land as agricultural land. It cannot be said that they formed two independent units. Hence, in our view the above decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. In fact in Special Deputy Collector v. Gattepalli Nagabhushanam, 1996 (1) ALD 1173, a Bench of this Court has held considering the above decisions (supra) that it was permissible to grant compensation separately for the trees. It should also be seen that the appellants claimed separate compensation for the trees on the basis of the annual income on the fruits on capitalisation method. They deposed in their evidence seeking compensation. But none of the witnesses of the appellants has been cross-examined on this aspect. It is not even urged in the Court below that the appellants were not entitled for the compensation separately for the trees. Both the LAO. and the Court below have granted compensation separately for the trees on capitalisation method and there was no appeal filed by the Government questioning the same. Hence, the appellants cannot be denied of the compensation in this regard. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled for compensation separately for the trees on their yearly yield on capitalisation method and also for the value of the wood of Babul trees, Neem trees etc.
14. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the number of trees and their values given by both the L.A.O. and the Court below are not correct and are too low.
15. A Commissioner has been appointed at the instance of the appellants to estimate the ages and number of trees and the probable income from the fruits by taking the assistance of the Asst. Director of Agriculture. The Commissioner has also filed his report in this regard. Curiously, however, the appellants have not taken any steps to examine the Commissioner. The Court below was therefore not prepared to place any reliance on the Commissioner's report as it was not proved. The compensation granted by the L.A.O. was not therefore, interefered with by the Court below.
16. The total amount claimed for compensation for the trees, in all the above appeals is Rs.21,98,740/-(l3.34,565 + 8,64.175), out of which the L.A.O. granted Rs.70,739/- (48,265 + 22,474). No doubt the appellants would be entitled for higher amount of compensation if the Commissioner's report was to be taken into consideration. But, as stated supra, as it was not properly proved, the Court below was not inclined to accept the values therein. The amounts fixed by the L.A.O. and the Court below are based upon the evidence of the Officers examined by the L.A.O. Though they arc very low, when compared to the values claimed by the appellants in their claim petition as well as in their evidence, taking into consideration the other evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the compensation for the trees should have been fixed at higher rates. We are of the considered opinion that the compensation for the trees should have been fixed at Rs.5,25,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs Twenty five thousands only). Accordingly, the compensation for the trees in A.S. Nos.822, 825, 826 and 835 of 1997 is enhanced to Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty five thousands only), and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) in A.S. Nos.824 and of l997.
17. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed, in the circumstances with proportionate costs.