Telangana High Court
Union Of India, vs Erravelli Rama Rao, on 14 November, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LAAS.No.133 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 11/claimants.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the Requisitioning Department aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.04.2013 passed in OP.No.66 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a revised requisition made by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Con), South Central Railway, Secunderabad, the lands, in all admeasuring Acs.3-14 ½ guntas situated in Sy.Nos.108/1, 108/2, 110, 180/1, 181/1, 182/1, 278/1, 280/2, 306, 337/1, 337/2, 338/1, 338/2 and 339/1 of Neerukulla Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 11/ claimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of new broad gauge single 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 railway line between Peddapalli to Karimnagar; that initially, Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 12.09.2002; that thereafter, the amended draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and also the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette on 17.03.2003; that possession of the acquired land was taken on 28.06.2003; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.15 of 2004, dated 06.12.2005, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.55,000/- per acre and granted compensation of Rs.5,00,983/- for the three wells and Rs.3,618/- for the trees that were existing in the acquired lands.
4. Dissatisfied with the said Award, respondent Nos.1 to 11/ claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent civil Court and was numbered as O.P.No.66 of 2007 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 11/claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.R-1-Award was marked.
6. On due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.55,000/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. The Reference Court also enhanced the compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands by two times over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., Rs.15,02,949/- for the wells and pipelines and Rs.10,854/- for the trees. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Requisitioning Department in respect of enhancement of compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands by the Reference Court.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands based on mere assumptions and presumptions, without there being any material and evidence; that the Reference Court ought to have seen that when compensation was to be enhanced for the acquired lands, no 4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 separate compensation can be awarded for the wells and trees existing therein; and that therefore, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 11/claimants submitted that the Reference Court, by taking into consideration the material available on record, has rightly enhanced the compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands by two times over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is fair and reasonable, and therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material available on record.
10. Admittedly, in the instant case, no capitalization method was followed by the Government while fixing the market value of the acquired lands, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (dead) through LRs and others Vs. State of U.P. 1, the claimants are entitled for separate 1 (2003) 10 SCC 525 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 compensation for the wells and trees that existed in the acquired lands.
11. Perusal of the record shows that before the Reference Court the claimants have got marked Exs.A-2 to A-4-Estimates for the wells. The person who prepared Exs.A-2 to A-4-estimates was examined as P.W-3 and he deposed that he has been practicing as a private Architect and Engineer for the last thirty years at Karimnagar; that prior to that, he worked as Municipal Engineer in Town Planning Department of Municipal Administration; that he visited the subject acquired lands and after examining the wells, their size, the electrical motors fixed to the said wells, etc., he prepared the estimates of the wells and pipelines. The value of the wells shown in the estimates prepared by P.W-3 is three times more than the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer.
12. It is not out of place to note that in Ex.B-1-Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded that the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and CADD, Peddapalli, has furnished the estimates of the wells and pipelines that were existing in the acquired lands. But, observing that the estimates furnished by the said Officer is on 6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 higher side, the Land Acquisition Officer has deducted 20% of the value reflected in the said estimates and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,983/- for the wells and pipelines existing in the subject acquired lands. When the Executive Engineer, who is a competent Officer, with all his experience and expertise, has furnished the estimates of the wells and pipelines existing in the acquired lands, it is not proper and just on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to observe that the estimates furnished by the Executive Engineer is on higher side, without there being any reason or ground for the same. The Land Acquisition Officer has committed gross error in making such an observation in Ex.B-1-Award and thereby, awarding lesser compensation for the wells and pipelines existing in the subject acquired lands than the valuation estimated by the Executive Engineer.
13. Thus, there are two estimates with regard to valuation of wells and pipelines existing in the subject acquired lands on record, one issued by P.W-3, a private Architect and Engineer, and the other one issued by Executive Engineer, Irrigation and CADD, Peddapalli. In such event, the estimates issued by the Executive Engineer, who is a Government servant, commands more value and 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 authenticity than the one issued by P.W-3. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation for the wells and pipelines in the subject acquired lands as per the estimates prepared by the Executive Engineer.
14. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,31,092/- (Rupees Six lakhs thirty one thousand and ninety two only) towards compensation for the three wells and pipelines existing in the subject acquired lands.
15. As regards the compensation for the trees in the subject acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has determined and granted compensation for the scattered trees in the acquired lands keeping in view the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.601, Rev. (L.A) Department, dated 19.06.1992, and for the excise trees, he determined the compensation as per the guidelines issued in CLR's Ref.No.GG4/5217/79, dated 17.12.1979 and the notification published in District Gazette No.134, dated 17.10.1996 and granted compensation of Rs.3,168/-.
16. In the instant case, it is to be seen that the land was acquired vide 4(1) notification, dated 30.09.2002. Admittedly, even 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014 as per Ex.B-1-Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, various types of trees, viz., fuel, timber and excise trees, are existing in the subject acquired lands. G.O.Ms.No.601 followed by the Land Acquisition Officer for determining the value of the scattered trees dates back to the year 1992, i.e., there is a time gap of ten years between the date of acquisition of the subject lands and the said G.O. Further, the Circular is dated 17.12.1979, i.e., it was issued more than 23 years prior to the date of acquisition of the subject lands. Therefore, in view of the said time gap and due to inflation, certainly, the value of the trees prevailing in the local market would have increased. In such a situation, the value reflected in the G.Os., which were issued long prior to the date of acquisition in the present case, does not represent the true and correct value of the trees in the market and as a corollary, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation for the trees by three times over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, the impugned order of the Reference Court with regard to grant of compensation for the trees calls for no interference by this Court.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.133 of 2014
17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the impugned order passed by the Reference Court only to the extent of grant of compensation in respect of the wells and pipelines existing in the subject acquired lands and accordingly, the compensation granted by the Reference Court in the impugned order to a tune of Rs.15,02,949/- towards the wells and pipelines is reduced to Rs.6,31,092/- (Rupees Six lakhs thirty one thousand and ninety two only). In all other aspects the impugned order passed by the Reference Court remains unaltered.
18. As a sequel, interim order, dated 21.04.2014, passed in LAASMP.No.423 of 2014 stands vacated. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:14.11.2024 dr