AS/1135/2001 of THE LAO AND SUB COLLLECTOR BHONGIR Vs D.RAMALINGAIAH AND OTHERS on 30 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TEN

PRESENTHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAnd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT No.1135 OF 2001

Between:

The L.A.O.(Sub-Collector, Bhongir)

D. Ramalingaiah & 10 others

And

..... Appellant

…Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

AndTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT No.1135 of 2001

JUDGMENT:(PerHon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad)

The appeal is directed against the award in LandAcquisition Original Petition No.11 of 1987, on the file of theSubordinate Judge’s Court, at Bhongir, dated 01.04.1992.

2. Ac. 22.36 cents in Raigiri Village were acquired by theGovernment for formation of a percolation tank and possessionwas taken on 27.08.1981. The draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘theAct’), was published on 20.10.1984 and the award was passed on04.08.1986 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.4,500/- peracre. The claimants protested resulting in the reference to thecivil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

3. The claimants, in their claims before the Land AcquisitionOfficer and the reference Court, sought for a compensation ofRs.25,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per acre. During the enquiry, thereference Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8, while no oral evidence was adduced by the Referring Officerexcept marking Ex.B-1.

4. The reference Court rendered the impugned award notingthat Claimant No.5 as P.W.1 claimed the land acquired to be veryfertile in which they were raising crops like chillies, castor andground nut or barli and tobacco also, getting an annual income ofRs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per acre. The reference Court notedP.W.1 to have claimed about the fruit bearing trees existing in the different items of land acquired and also that the lands beinglocated by the side of Hanmakonda to Hyderabad road withnumber of houses, huts, plots, poultry farms, etc., being situatedwithin the vicinity, had high potentiality. P.W.1 was also noted tohave stated about the location of the Government sericulturefarm nearby and that the civil Court fixed a compensation ofRs.9,500/- per acre granted to Madda Veeramma, the owner ofthe land six years prior to this present subject acquisition. Number of horticulture and poultry farms and residential colonieswere also claimed to be coming up and P.W.1 produced Exs.A-1to A-8 Sale Deeds between 11.08.1983 and 08.02.1985 in supportof his claims of higher value for the lands around. The referenceCourt then referred to the evidence of P.W.2, the vendor underEx.A-7, about the sale of 180 square yards effected on07.05.1984. It also noted the evidence of P.W.3 about sale ofhouse plots about nine years earlier in the vicinity of Sri RamaDasharatha under Ex.A-6 Sale Deed, dated 16.05.1983. Thereference Court also noted the evidence of P.W.4 about sellingthe land in Sy.No.735 at Rs.30,000/- per acre, but that he gotregistered at a reduced rate at the request of the purchaser underEx.A-7 Sale Deed, dated 07.05.1984. The reference Court notedthat Exs.A-1 to A-7 were prior to the issuance of Notificationunder Section 4 (1) of the Act and Ex.A-8 Sale Deed, dated08.02.1985, was subsequent. It further noted that the LandAcquisition Officer who considered the sale transactions of 1982,1983 and 1985 made a personal inspection of the lands and afterreferring to the various sales referred to by the Land AcquisitionOfficer in his award, the reference Court noted that the bestfigure in the sale transactions referred to by the Land AcquisitionOfficer was Rs.6,000/- per acre in Sl.No.729, but that land was

noted to be away from the road without any approachability andbeing unsuitable for industrial or house site purpose. Thereference Court suspected possible speculation in some of thetransactions, but noted that even the local enquiry conducted bythe Land Acquisition Officer revealed the market value to beRs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. The reference Courtdiscarded Ex.A-3 Sale Deed, dated 21.05.1984, as it wasconcerning a small extent and Ex.A-6 as that land was lower thanthe acquired land and Ex.A-7 as P.W.4 told about suppression ofthe value at the request of the purchaser under Ex.A-7. Ex.A-8was not taken into account as none connected with it wasexamined, but still it was noted that the village is by the side ofthe National highway/Hanmakonda to Hyderabad road and thereference Court also took notice of the agriculturists citing lesservalue in their registered documents to avoid stamp duty. Notingthat all the sales were not on yardage basis, on an overallappreciation of the entire evidence, the reference Court was ofthe opinion that the market value can be justly and reasonablyfixed at Rs.11,000/- per acre. It awarded solatium at 30% andinterest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possessionand 15% thereafter till the date of realization.

5. The State preferred the present appeal being aggrieved bythe said award and contended that there is nothing on record tobe depended upon for fixing the market value at Rs.11,000/- peracre after the reference Court itself discarded the documentsfrom consideration. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed just andreasonable market value basing on the potentiality and fertility ofthe lands at the relevant time and the reference itself was illegal. Hence, the appeal.

6. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the 4[th] respondentdied and his legal representatives were brought on record asrespondents 8 to 11.

7. The appeal was posted for taking steps in respect ofrespondents 6 and 7 also and by virtue of the Court Order, dated23.06.2009, the appeal stood dismissed for default againstrespondents 6 and 7 in the absence of taking any steps.

8. Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleaderfor the appellant and Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy, learned counselfor the contesting claimants are heard.

9. The point for consideration is whether the market valuefixed by the reference Court is susceptible for reduction andwhether the statutory benefits were granted to the claimants inaccordance with law?

10. The award impugned in the appeal is a common award infavour of seven claimants fixing the market value at Rs.11,000/-per acre and the appeal having been dismissed for defaultagainst the respondents 6 and 7, who were stated to be no more,the appeal, as it stands now, cannot be considered to be properlyconstituted. Any reassessment of the market value against theremaining respondents and consequential determination of theappeal respecting them is likely to result in conflicting decreeswhich is not permissible.

11. Even otherwise, it is seen from the material on record thatabsolutely no evidence was produced by the referring Officerbefore the reference Court and even the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not marked and admitted intoevidence. Under the circumstances, it is not clear as to on whatbasis it is known or under what circumstances it was claimed inthe grounds of appeal that the reference itself was illegal, apartfrom the question whether the appellant, who himself made thereference to the civil Court, can resile from the reference on anysuch ground.

12. Even otherwise, there was, thus, no evidence to contradictthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the reference Court on oath. P.W.2 spoke about the sale transaction under Ex.A-3 and exceptthat it was concerning a small extent, the reference Court did notfind the sale or evidence of P.W.2 to be otherwise undependablefor any reason. Similarly, P.W.3’s evidence about Ex.A-6 wasdiscarded only due to the difference in levels of the land andP.W.3 positively deposed about the general increase in the pricesof lands in their village due to establishment of industries,schools, shops and hotels, which claim is not denied. Apart fromthe difference in level, it is not stated that the lands covered byEx.A-6 and the acquired lands were totally incomparableotherwise and P.W.4 was courageous enough to state that thevalue was mentioned at a reduced rate as consideration underEx.A-7, at the request of the vendee and he claimed the value ofthe lands in the locality to be Rs.30,000/- per acre due to theconstant increase in the values of the land due to theestablishment of the industries in the area. While the LandAcquisition Officer himself, during his inspection and localenquiry, found the market value of the lands in the area to beabout Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre, when the saletransactions under Exs.A-1 to A-7 were anterior to Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, they need not have been straightaway discarded. The sale statistics referred to by the LandAcquisition Officer were innumerable in number and all of themwere discarded for various reasons and the reasoning itselfshows that the lands which were totally unapproachable from themain road and were far away from the main road, unsuitable forindustrial or house site purposes were the lands which werefound to be uncomparable, while the lands acquired were by theside of Hanmakonda to Hyderabad road. The approachability ofthe lands or the suitability of the lands for agriculture are not indispute and the over all possibilities arising out of the oral anddocumentary evidence, thus, indicate that the market value of thelands in the locality could never have been less than Rs.6,000/-to Rs.10,000/- per acre as noted by the Land Acquisition Officerhimself during the local enquiry. As the values of the salescovered by Exs.A-1 to A-7 were much much higher, thereference Court fixing the market value by giving a marginalbenefit at Rs.11,000/- per acre cannot be considered to bedivorced from the then prevailing market rate and in the absenceof any strong and convincing reasons, the jurisdiction exercisedby the reference Court cannot be considered to be illegal orirregular.

13. However, it is seen that the statutory benefits awarded onthe market value fixed were not in accordance with the LandAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984). The reference Court did not grant additional market value at 12%per annum and awarded interest from the date of takingpossession, while the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) ofthe Act was much later. These distortions are to be corrected and though the deceased respondents 6 and 7 remainunrepresented in the appeal, as the said correction relates togiving effect to the mandatory statutory provisions relating tobenefits consequential to the fixation of market value and as thedetermination of the market value is not interfered with, the sameis not impermissible. The impugned award has to be modified,accordingly, while dismissing the appeal.

14. In the result, the enhancement of the compensation toRs.11,000/- per acre by the award in Land Acquisition OriginalPetition No.11 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’sCourt, Bhongir, dated 01.04.1992, is confirmed and the claimantsshall be entitled to solatium at 30% and additional market value at12% per annum for the period specified in Section 23 (1-A) of theLand acquisition Act with interest at 9% per annum from the dateof Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e., 20.10.1984 for aperiod of one year and at 15% per annum thereafter till thepayment of the enhanced compensation. The impugned award ismodified to that extent.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs exceptto the extent of such modification.

_______________________

(G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J)

_______________________

(K.G. SHANKAR,

J)

KL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAndTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT No.1135 OF 2001(Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad)

KL

December 30, 2010.