Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Special Deputy Collector, L.A. vs G. Mallikarjuna And Ors. on 8 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)ALD81, 2006(2)ALT254
JUDGMENT G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. These appeals are preferred by the State represented by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-ll, Telugu Ganga Project, Podalakurat Cuddapah, challenging the common order of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, dated 9-2-2000.
2. The appellant acquired the land situated at Chittayapalli and neighbouring villages in Atloor Mandal with houses for submersion of Somasila Project. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published on 14-8-1981 for acquisition of the houses of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an enquiry passed the awards on 17-9-1986 fixing the market value to various structures depending upon the nature and the area covered by the structure. The claimants received the compensation amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, accordingly, referred the matters to the Civil Court.
3. During the course of enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined on behalf of the appellant and the awards were marked. The claimants examined their witnesses and also marked several documents. The lower Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties enhanced the market value of the structures by 80% over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Court, preferred these appeals challenging the order on the ground that the lower Court enhanced the market value by 80% on imagination basis without any assessment of the value of the houses on scientific lines.
4. In the light of the contentions raised by the appellant, the point for consideration is whether the enhancement of market value to an extent of 80% made by the lower Court is sustainable under law and whether it is liable to be reduced to a reasonable extent?
5. Chittayapalli of Cuddapah District is one of the villages submerged in Somasila Project. Before submersion of the village, the Engineers of Roads and Buildings Department alleged to have assessed the market value of each house. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the said value and passed the award.
6. The claimants contended that they got the value of each house estimated through a private engineer and as per those estimates, the value of each house is much more than the value, fixed by the Engineer of R & B Department. The lower Court did not base its decision either on the value fixed by the Engineer of R & B Department or on the value fixed by the private engineer engaged by the claimants. The lower Court by relying on the judgment of Madras High Court in Deptylal v. Collector of Nilgiris observed that the Court can make some guess work in fixing the market value of the houses. The Court by relying on a judgment in L.A.O.P. Nos. 181 and 184 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Rajampet enhanced the market value by 80% by observing that the said court enhanced the market value by 100% per cent in the earlier judgment.
7. The learned Government Pleader representing the appellant submitted that the lower Court did not take any of the documents available on record, into consideration while granting enhancement of the compensation, therefore, it is essential to verify the common evidence recorded in all the O.Ps.
8. P.W.1, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-I, Cuddapah, deposed that the structures were acquired by the Government for Somasila Project and an award was passed on 4-11-1997. The claimants received the amount under protest. Therefore, the reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. Ex.A-1 is the award copy dt.14-11-1997. The estimates for the structures were prepared by the Engineering Department. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on correct lines, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for enhancement. In the cross-examination, he stated that as per the rules and guidelines of the Government, valuation of the structures have to be obtained from R&B Department, but in this case the Land Acquisition Officer obtained the estimates from the Requisition Department i.e., I&P Department. The site value of the land was not considered for the valuation of the structures. The deduction towards depreciation was made by the Engineers without any reasons. He denied a suggestion that the market value of the structures fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and does not represent the real market value as on the date of notification.
9. R.W.1, Sri B. Gopalaiah, one of the claimants, deposed that after issuing of the notification, the Engineering Department of Somasila Project prepared the model estimates of their village and adopted the same for other structures also. They have not prepared the individual estimates for the respective structures. The Engineering Department had taken the model estimates and fixed the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer did not adopt the valuation fixed by I&P Department and reduced 20% of the amount towards depreciation without valid reasons. They claimed the site value at Rs. 100/- per square metre, in addition to the market value of the structures. He further stated that in Ex.B-2 order in L.A.O. P. No. 164 of 1987 and in Ex.B-3 order in L.A.O.P. No. 344 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, the same Court enhanced the market value by 100%. The Government did not prefer any appeal against those orders and deposited the amount into the Court. In the cross-examination he deposed that the structures of his village are existing since long time and they are old.
10. R.W.2 a private Civil Engineer by name S. Chinna Narasimha Reddy deposed that he visited the village at the request of the claimants, took the measurements of the structures, noted the features of each and every structure and prepared the estimates basing on the S.S.R. rates of the year 1994-95. He further deposed that there is no dispute regarding the measurements and nature of the structures as mentioned in the award. He adopted the cost of the material as per the SSR rates and he did not mention the site value in his estimates. In the cross-examination he stated that he had no personal knowledge whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation to the site. He denied a suggestion that he did not visit the village and prepare the estimates reflecting the real value and the value of each house is exaggerated to help the claimants.
11. R.W.3, Sri A.C. Bayapu Reddy, one of the persons of the village, deposed that the Sub-Judge, Rajampet, granted enhancement of 100% over the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by allowing L.A.O.P. Nos. 164 of 1987 and 344 of 1989. The Government did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Court and there was no difference between the structures of his village and other villages submerged in the project. In the cross-examination he denied a suggestion that the compensation awarded for the structures in the previous references has no comparison with the structures under this reference.
12. R.W.4, one of the claimants by name M.T. Bhaskar Rao, deposed that when the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value, it was enhanced by 100% by the Sub-Judge, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. The Government did not prefer any appeal against the said order and deposited the amount into the Court. The structures of all the villages submerged in the project are of similar nature.
13. R. W.5 also deposed that the structures and the lands of his village were acquired by the Government for Somasila Project and when the matters were referred to the Civil Court, the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet enhanced the market value by 100% over the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in L.A.O.P. No. 182 of 1987. The Government did not prefer any appeal against the said order of the Court and deposited the amount into Court, and there is no difference between the structures of his village and the structures of other villages, submerged in Somasila Project. Similar evidence was adduced by both parties in all other OPs.
14. The evidence of all the witnesses is not disclosing either about the nature of structures or the value of the structures. Therefore, the oral evidence adduced by both parties is not helpful in arriving at a reasonable value of the structures involved in the acquisition. Therefore, we wish to refer to the documentary evidence placed by both parties.
15. Ex.A-1 is the proceedings in award No. 3 of 1995 relating to Chittayapalli village. As per the said award, 239 structures were acquired. The valuation of the structures was estimated by the Executive Engineer of Somasila Project on the basis of plinth area. The valuation of each structure was made by the Engineering Officer of the Irrigation Department and the market value of all the dwelling houses and other structures were determined by the officer concerned by applying the SSR rates of the year 1994-95. The Engineering Department took the age of the huts and houses into consideration and allowed depreciation of 10%. The Engineers prepared the estimates according to the plinth area for residential houses like thatched houses, pucca buildings with RCC slabs, Cuddapah slabs, Terraced houses etc., as per the norms prescribed by the Engineering Department by taking into consideration the quality of the material used for construction. The Land Acquisition Officer after verifying the title of each house adopted the value of each structure given by the Engineering Department and passed the award by extending all statutory benefits.
16. Ex.A-2 is the award No. 4 of 1995 relating to the acquisition of the houses at Chittaipalli. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the value given by the Engineering Department, as adopted in award No. 3 of 1995, in respect of each house depending upon the nature of structure, the area of structure etc. The claimants also relied on the judgments of the referral court in L.A.O. P. No. 1531 of 1988 and 181 of 1987 to impress upon the lower Court that the Court after taking into consideration the material placed by both parties, enhanced the compensation by 100%. In the awards covered by exhibits, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge observed that the estimates prepared by the private engineers do not contain the material particulars in their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of those private engineers need not be considered. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge in those awards observed that the value adopted by the engineers of the R & B department is also low. He further observed that for fixing the market value of the structures, one of the methods viz., comparable transactions (sale deeds) method, rental method, contractor's method and expert's opinion can be adopted. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge further observed that the claimants have not produced any sale deeds of the structures, therefore, the comparable sales method cannot be followed. The claimants have not stated anything with regard to the rents of their structures, therefore, the rental method also cannot be followed. The claimants have not followed the contractor's method as detailed in Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State AIR 1955 Travancore-Cochin 110. They simply examined private engineers, therefore, such evidence cannot be relied on. He further observed that as per the decision rendered by Madras High Court in Deptylal's case (1 supra) fixing of the market value of the property is not an exact science and it is an enquiry relating to the subject abounding in uncertainties where there is more than ordinary guess work and where it would be very unfair to require an exact exposition of the reasons for the conclusions arrived at. Therefore, some guess work has to be made by the Court. He further observed that there are various types of structures including vasaras, lavatories, bathrooms, cattle sheds, jaladari pials, tubs, bore-wells, open wells, cement platforms, compound walls etc. No evidence was adduced with regard to many of those items, therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the claimants are not entitled for any enhancement for each of those items and in respect of other items he enhanced the compensation at 80% of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The District Judge, Cuddapah also in L.A.O.P. No. 777 of 2001 enhanced the market value by 100% on the basis of the earlier orders in similar acquisitions passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Rajampet.
17. After going through the entire evidence and the reasons given for enhancement in the earlierorders, we are made to understand that the Land Acquisition Officer adopted the valuation of each house given by the departmental engineers and the courts below did not disturb the valuation adopted by the departmental engineers.
18. The engineers who estimated the value of the structures gave broad information without going into the details regarding the area, the nature of construction, the nature of roof etc. They did not give any information about the existence of wells, bore-wells, platforms, cattle sheds, lavatories, bathrooms, vasaras etc. They also did not take any information as what is the area of the land of each house on which the respective houses were constructed. They also did not make any exercise to ascertain the market value of house sites situated in those villages.
19. The Engineers of I & P Department and private Engineers have taken only the area of the structure into consideration in arriving at its market value depending upon the nature of structure. If a person owns a house site of 70 yards or 100 yards or 200 yards and if the house is in part of the said area by keeping the remaining area vacant, it would be unjust if the value of the structure only is estimated without taking into consideration the value of the vacant site surrounding the structure. It is an established principle that whenever the value of a structure is estimated and compensation is fixed, the claimant is not entitled for a separate compensation for the land on which the structure is situated. But, when there is vacant site either abutting or surrounding the structure, the claimant is entitled for the value of such vacant land, in addition to the value of the structure for awarding compensation.
20. The Land Acquisition Officer ought to have instructed the engineers concerned to measure the structure and vacant site separately and compensation ought to have been fixed on the basis of those measurements and estimates. But, unfortunately such information is not available with us and as all the villages, in which the structures were acquired, were submerged in the Somasila Project, no useful purpose will be served by giving any direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to do the said exercise at this stage. Every house would have had some vacant place either as a back yard or front yard to keep the agricultural produce or cattle or the grains. By estimating the value of the structures only, many claimants might have been denied the compensation for the vacant sites abutting the houses or other miscellaneous structures available in the vacant land, which were not taken into consideration while estimating the value of the structures. The lower Court, though did not make similar approach in enhancing the compensation, might have felt that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to take into consideration the availability of the vacant land, the miscellaneous structures, if any, on such land in addition to the structures of the respective claimants. Though the lower Court enhanced the compensation by 80% on some guess work, we are of the considered view that there is every necessity of granting additional compensation to the claimants, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
21. After taking into consideration the failure of the Land Acquisition Officer in ascertaining the ages of the buildings, the percentage of depreciation that could be adopted, the availability of the vacant land as front yard or back yard or surrounding the structure, the availability of miscellaneous structures like open wells, bore wells, platforms, lavatories, bathrooms, pials, cattle sheds etc., we are of the considered view that the enhancement of compensation by 80%, though fixed on some guess work, is quite reasonable and it needs no interference.
22. In the result, the appeals are dismissed by confirming the orders of the courts below. No order as to costs.