Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Raja J. Rameswara Rao And Anr. on 13 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)ALT565
ORDER G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. As these three appeals arise out of a common order dated 25-4-1986 in O.P.No.16/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Gadwal, all of them are being disposed of together.
2. An extent of Ac3.36 guntas of dry land covered by S.No. 1142 in Wanaparthy village in Mahaboobnagar District was acquired by means of a notification dated 8-3-1979 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of an R.T.C. bus-stand. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 19-6-1981 fixing the market value at Rs. 1-60 paise per square yard. On reference, the civil court passed an order on 25-4-1986 fixing the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said award the claimants as well the beneficiary i.e., the A.P.S.R.T.C. preferred these appeals.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer considering the potential items and particularly relying upon Exs.A-14 and A-15 sale deeds, awarded a sum of Rs. 1-60 Ps. per square yard towards compensation. On reference, in the Civil Court, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. As many as 15 documents were marked on behalf of the claimants and one document was marked on behalf of the beneficiary (A.P.S.R.T.C./State), in the lower court. The lower Court fixed the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard, basing on the oral and documentary evidence. As mentioned above, aggrieved by the same, these appeals were preferred.
4. Sri K. Harinath, Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. contends that Exs.A-8 to A-11 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining the real value of the land as on the date of notification. On the other hand, Sri Nagarjuna Reddy, counsel for the claimants contends that Exs.A-8 to A-11 can be treated and taken into consideration as bonafide transactions between willing purchaser and willing seller and consequently, the lower court has rightly considered and' accepted those documents.
5. It is well settled that in the case of public auctions, there will be compensation among the bidders. When there is compensation among the bidders, the price may not be the same price as what actually exist in that area. At certain times, if the bidders are more and if each one is keen to have that plot of land, one may offer high price to maximum extent possible disregarding the actual market value even. In the case of auctions of lands, that too, house sites, where more participants are there, we cannot expect the real value which can be treated as a comparable value for the purpose of determining compensation. Yet a distinction, that in the case of court-auctions, as there will be much litigation and doubtful title, the rate of bid may be less than the market value. So, in the case of private auctions of plots where there is clear title, definitely the value expected will be competitively higher and therefore, it will not and cannot reflect the true market value existing in that locality. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in case where the transactions resulted in open auction and where there are many bidders, that bid rate cannot be taken into account as a real market value. In this case, P.W.1 is the person connected with the 2nd claimant. He was not an employee under the second claimant at that time and he participated in the auction. Though he claims that there is no competitive spirit in the auction, the evidence on record categorically discloses that there is competitive spirit. He himself bid at Rs. 1,41,000/- whereas another bid it at Rs.1,45,000/-. This is clear indication that there is competitive spirit in the open auction. Hence, the sale considerations under Exs.A-8 to A-11 cannot be taken as comparable transactions for the purpose of determining the real value of the land in question.
6. If we exclude Exs.A-8 to A-11, then remains Ex.A-12 sale transaction. Normally in a case where a small bit of land is sold, measuring 12 1/2" x 12 1/2"; even in a by-lane in a residential locality, the price will be a fancy price and where a person wants to have a shop in that locality, naturally, he will pay more price, because he wants to have it for business purposes. So, sale transactions of a small bits of land like the one in question, cannot be considered as material piece of documentary evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of a land of nearly Ac.4-00. Our view has been fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala, .
7. Coming to Exs.A-14 and A-15, we feel that some more evidence has to be let in, before considering those documents. We came to that conclusion after reading the evidence of P.W.5 and the contents in Exs.A-14 and A-15. The recitals therein play a vital role and if any party deviates from the recitals, the court will appreciate the same duly taking into account the provisions contained in Section 92 of the Evidence Act. As mentioned above, because we feel that some more evidence is to be let in with regard to A-15, we cannot say anything on these documents. It is left open for the Court below to consider the same afresh after further evidence, if any, is adduced by all the concerned. It should be remembered that Exs.A-14 and A-15 relate to Survey No. 1139 and the acquired land is in Survey No. 1142 and both the lands are facing Kurnool Hyderabad highway.
8. The other document relied upon by the Court below is a sale deed of the year 1975 for 40 x 60 feet land for Rs. 12,000/-. But unless and until the document relating to that sale has been produced, marked and proved by a competent witness, it cannot be considered. It is a well settled proposition that even sale statistics mentioned in the Award cannot be considered unless they are produced, marked and proved through a competent witness. Same is the case here.
9. The next important aspect to be considered is the suggestion given by the learned Government Pleader to the witnesses regarding the existing market value of the land. The moment the Government Pleader appears on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer and conducts the case, it is his duty to support the award under reference and the contents in the counter. Unless and until he was authorised by the Land Acquisition Officer to concede or suggest a particular value of the land which is at variance than the one that has been mentioned in the award or in the counter he has to obtain written instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer. The Government Pleader has no right or authority to give suggestions to the witnesses that the value of the land under acquisition will be at a particular rate contrary to the stand taken in the counter. In this case, it is suggested to P.W.1 that the value of the land is about Rs. 50/- per square yard. It is also suggested to P.W.4 that the value of the land will be about Rs. 30/- to Rs. 40/- per square yard. There is no consistency in the suggestions made to the witnesses. The inconsistent way in which the suggestions are made coupled with the duty that has beer cast on him that he should not make any concession as he is bound to support the Award and the counter, we feel that any concession or suggestion that has been made in that regard will not be of any avail to the claimants to contend that there is an admission or the Court is not bound to take that suggestion into account and it has to eschew that suggestion from consideration. No credence should be attached to such suggestions and the suggestions have no relevance for purpose of fixing a reasonable market value basing on the evidence that has been produced before the Court irrespective of the factum of the production of the sale statistics or other documents during the proceedings prior to the passing of the award. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala, The concessions made by the Government Pleader contrary to the stand taken in the counter and suggestions made to the witnesses without any instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer will have a suicidal effect and it amounts to professional misconduct on the part of the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer.
10. If we exclude this, we feel that there is no other evidence left for us to determine the case on merits as to what would be the reasonable compensation that payable to the claimants. Since we feel that due opportunity has to be given to all the parties concerned and the Court must also be reasonably clothed with certain authority to decide the matter the matter deserved to be remitted back to the lower court for determining the market value of the land as on the date of Notification, duly taking into account the oral and documentary evidence which was produced and to be produced. The Corporation and the claimants are at liberty to produce further evidence, if any, so that the Court below will arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
11. Accordingly, the Order of the Court below is set aside and the appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for fresh consideration uninfluenced by the observations made in the lower Court by the predecessors in Office. The Court-fee paid on the Memoranda of Appeals shall be refunded. The Lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any case not later than six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Since the claimants have already withdrawn the compensating amount, no further steps shall be taken in that regard till the disposal of the matter afresh in the lower Court. No costs.