Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Special Deputy Collector, ... vs Gattepalli Nagabhushanam And Ors. on 23 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(3)ALT580, 1996 A I H C 4386, (1996) 1 ANDHLD 1173, (1996) 3 ANDH LT 580, (1996) 2 LS 32, (1996) 4 CURCC 326
Author: C.V.N. Sastri
Bench: C.V.N. Sastri
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal in O.P.No. 117 of 1983 whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of their lands which were acquired for the purpose of excavation of Kakatiya canal. The total extent involved is Acs.22-06 guntas in Chinthagattu village of Warangal Taluk. The notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 5-3-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 28-3-1980, fixed the market value of Bhagayat lands (dry lands) at Rs. 3,100/- per acre and of wet lands at Rs. 4,200/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer also fixed the compensation for the trees (Sendhi and Palmyrah) at Rs. 48-40 per tree. In the lands belonging to the claimants 6 and 7 there were two wells for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 51,165/- for the 6th claimant's well and Rs. 9,880/- for the 7th claimant's well. In addition, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the statutory solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. On a reference Under Section 18of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal, has enhanced the compensation for Bhagayat lands to Rs. 15,000/- per acre and for the wet lands to Rs. 18,000/- per acre. The learned Subordinate Judge has also enhanced the compensation for the trees to Rs. 300/- per tree. Insofar as the wells are concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation in respect of the 6th claimant's well to Rs. 77,750/- and the compensation in respect of the 7th claimant's well to Rs. 27,151/-.
3. Questioning the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has contended that the fixation of the market value of the lands at Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- per acre by the lower Court is excessive. He submitted that in respect of similar lands acquired under the self-same notification, this Court has confirmed the grant of Rs. 12,000/- per acre by judgment dated 14-6-1989 in A.S.No. 632 of 1987. He also contended that the evaluation of the trees and wells separately in addition to the market value of the land is not permissible and placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Koyappathodi M. v. State of Kerala, .
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that in respect of some other lands which were acquired for the same canal, this Court has confirmed the grant of Rs. 15,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 18,000/- per acre for wet lands in A.S.No. 2400 of 1987 dated 22-12-1989 and A.S.No. 2444 of 1987 dated 5-6-1989. He further submitted that the enhancement of compensation in respect of the trees as well as the wells is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.
5. To prove the market value of the lands, apart from the oral evidence of some of the claimants who are examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, the claimants have relied mainly on a sale deed dated 12-8-1977 (Ex.A-2) where under P.W.7 sold an extent of Acs.0-20 guntas of dry land in Survey No. 22-F of the same village at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Apart from this document, there is no other documentary evidence. Ex.A-1 is the sketch map showing the different Survey Nos. in the locality. Survey No. 22-F, which is covered by Ex.A-2 sale deed does not appear anywhere in the said sketch. It is not dear from the material on record whether the said land is similar to the lands under acquisition in the present case and whether it is proximate to the lands under acquisition, apart from the interested oral evidence of the claimants themselves. Further, it is the well established principle that the price fetched for a small extent of land cannot be taken as she basis for fixing the market value of a large block of land. We are therefore, of the view that the market value of the acquired land cannot be fixed solely on the basis of Ex.A-2 without regard to the other circumstances. All the same the fact remains that on the basis of Ex.A-2, this Court has earlier fixed the market value of the dry lands acquired under the self-same notification at Rs. 12,000/- per acre in A.S.No. 632 of 1987 dated 14-9-1989 and in A.S.No. 625 of 1987 dated 14-6-1989.
6. Another fact which has to be noticed in this connection is that Section 4(1) notification in the instant case is dated 5-3-1979 whereas Ex.A-2 is dated 12-8-1977. So there is a time-lag of nearly 1 1/2 years between the date of Ex.A-2 and the date of Section 4(1) notification in this case. Therefore, some allowance has to be made 7for the general rise in prices of lands. It has also to be borne in mind that though the total extent involved in this case is Acres 22-6 guntas the number of claimants is 16 and most of them are owning only small extents of lands of less than Acre 1-00. Further, in respect of the lands subsequently acquired for the same project under the notification dated 20-7-1981, this Court has confirmed the valuation of dry lands at Rs. 15,000/-per acre and wet lands at Rs. 18,000/- per acre in A.S.No. 2400 of 1987 dated 22-12-1989 and A.S.No. 2444 of 1987 dated 5-6-1989. The learned Subordinate Judge without assigning any reasons and without considering any of the above relevant factors has fixed the market value of dry lands at Rs. 15,000/- per acre and the market value of the wet lands at Rs. 18,000/-per acre without any basis. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it is just and proper to fix the market value of dry lands in the instant case at Rs. 13,000/- per acre and wet lands at Rs. 15,000/- per acre.
7. Coming to the valuation of the trees, the Supreme Court in Administrator Genl. of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, , Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala (1 supra) and State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 637 has laid down that where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes and on the basis of prices fetched by small sites in a hypothetical lay-out, the tree-growth on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield. This however, does not come in the way of awarding the timber value or the salvage value of the tree-growth after providing for the cost of cutting and removing. The same is the principle to be applied in the case of lands which have been valued as orchards on the basis of the yield from the trees. The principles laid down in the aforementioned cases cannot however, be applied to the present case as the lands have been valued merely as agricultural lands, dry or wet as the case may be, without reference to their potential value for building purposes. On the basis of the evidence relating to the income from the trees, the lower Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per tree. The total number of trees is only 17. On these facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per tree made by the lower Court.
8. The only other question which survives for consideration is regarding the valuation of the wells which are found in the lands belonging to claimants 6 and 7. In O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector , it is held that while estimating the market value of agricultural land, the estimated construction costs of the wells cannot be separately assessed a part from assessment of market value of the land and that the market value of the land has to be assessed having regard to availability of irrigation facility on the land and where wells are available as source of irrigation, regard be had to the yield of water from the wells. Having regard to this decision of the Supreme Court, the award of compensation separately for the wells based on the estimated cost of construction cannot be held to be proper. It may also be noted that in the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that claimants 6 and 7 have been deriving any independent income from the said wells. For the aforesaid reasons, the enhancement of compensation granted by the lower Court with regard to the two wells belonging to claimants 6 and 7 is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. It follows from this that the lands where these two wells are located i.e., Ac.1-32 guntas in Survey No. 524 and Ac.1-32 guntas in Survey No. 525 belonging to the 6th claimant and an extent of Ac. 1-30 guntas in Survey No. 526 belonging to the 7th claimant should be treated and valued as wet lands and compensation for the said lands should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-per acre as fixed by us. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in awarding compensation separately for the two wells in question, we are not however, disturbing the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in this respect as the same is binding on the Government.
9. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part modifying the judgment and decree of the lower Court to the extent indicated above. Each party to bear their own costs.