AS/1029/2002 of The LA Officer AND Spl. Dy. Collector, Vs K. Ram Reddy on 30 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TEN

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

and

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

Appeal Suit Nos. 215, 434 and 1029 of 2002and cross objections in all the Appeal Suits A.S. No.215 of 2002:

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialDeputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Appellant

And

Smt. Nagalaxmamma .. Respondent

Cross objections in A.S. No.215 of 2002:

Between:Smt. Nagalaxmamma .. Crossobjector

And

The Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialDeputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Respondent A.S. No.434 of 2002:

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialDeputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Appellant AndJ. Beesanna (died) and others .. RespondentsCross objections in A.S. No.434 of 2002:Between:Nalivala Beesanna .. Cross objectorAndThe Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialDeputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. RespondentA.S. No.1029 of 2002:Between:The Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialDeputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. AppellantAndK. Ram Reddy ..RespondentCross objections in A.S. No.1029 of 2002:Between:K. Ram Reddy .. CrossobjectorAndThe Land Acquisition Officer and SpecialDeputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per G. Bhavani Prasad, J)

The awards in Land Acquisition O.P. Nos.243 of 1995,252 of 1995 and 240 of 1995 in pursuance of the common order,dated 09-01-2001 of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy are thesubject matter of A.S. Nos.215 of 2002, 434 of 2002 and 1029 of2002 respectively. While the appeals are by the State, the cross-objections are preferred in all the three matters by the claimants.

The factual background for the appeals and the cross-objections is that for the purpose of left main canal ofPriyadarshini Jurala Project, the State acquired lands at Shakapurand draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct (for short “the Act”) was published on 21-01-1992. The landswere divided into two categories by the Land Acquisition Officerafter due enquiry and he passed award dated 01-06-1992 fixing thecompensation at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.12,000/- per acrerespectively for categories I and II lands. The claimantsprotested, on which references were made to the civil Court underSection 18 of the Act. The claimants claimed Rs.35,000/- per acrefor dry lands and Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet lands before thereference Court and relied on the potentiality, fertility and locationof the lands in question for claiming such higher compensation. The claimants also claimed the sales statistics available to begenuine, the highest of which should have been straight awayadopted and the claimants also contended that they were raisingtwo crops in an year in the lands earning Rs.10,000/- per acrefrom dry lands and Rs.15,000/- per acre from wet lands. TheReferring Officer denied the claims and supported the award.

While so, after clubbing these three cases and O.P. No.244of 1995 together, the reference Court recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1during enquiry.

It rendered the common order noting that while theownership of the acquired lands was not in dispute, 37 sales werereferred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B.1 award. Thereference Court also noted that the lands under well-irrigation wereclassified as category I and the lands without that facility wereclassified as category II by the Land Acquisition Officer, who couldnot find any sale deeds in the three preceding years in respect ofcategory I lands, while for category 2 lands, he had somestatistics. The reference Court referred to the evidence of P.Ws.1and 2 about the nature of the lands, the crops raised, the incomeclaimed and the civic amenities available in the village with 1000houses. It also referred to the evidence of the purchaser underEx.A.1 document as P.W.3 and the seller under Ex.A.2 documentas P.W.5 apart from the evidence of the decree-holder in O.P.No.306 of 1995 and batch as P.W.4. The witnesses were noted tohave stated about the potentiality of the acquired lands and theLand Acquisition Officer himself was noted to have referred to thestrategic location of the village and the amenities available in thevillage. The reference Court also noted that the land at a distanceof half kilo metre was sold at a price of Rs.26,000/- per acre underEx.A.2. The evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.A.2 transaction withinthree years prior to the notification of Section 4(1) of the Act wereobserved to have been not shown to be not bona fide and it wasfurther noted that the discarded sales were attempted to bediscredited due to the location of the lands or the dates of thetransactions. However, the reference Court found no justificationfor the Land Acquisition Officer not adopting the value of the saleunder Ex.A.2 when it was admitted to be a comparable sale by theLand Acquisition Officer. The reference Court also found that the sale at item 36 of Ex.B.1 award was in respect of a land veryclose to the land acquired and the village and should have beenrelied on. The reference Court also discussed the object andpurpose of the law of land acquisition and concluded that the valueof Rs.26,000/- per acre under Ex.A.2 can be safely taken as thebasis for determining the market value of the land. After giving thebenefit of 10% escalation, the value was fixed at Rs.31,200/- peracre in respect of the lands cultivated with the help of wells and forthe dry lands, the value was fixed at Rs.24,000/- per acre. Thereference Court held the claimants to be entitled to the additionalamount of 12% per annum from the date of possession till the dateof award, solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from thedate of taking possession for one year and at 15% per annumthereafter till the date of payment on the original compensation. The reference Court did not grant interest on solatium andadditional amount.

The State challenged the awards in pursuance of thecommon order contending that the escalation granted by thereference Court based on Ex.A.2 is unsustainable, as the landunder Ex.A.2 is not in immediate proximity. The Court also failedto note that the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the sale underEx.A.2 as a motivated sale.

In the cross-objections of the respective claimants in thethree appeals, it was identically claimed that the Court itselfgranted Rs.34,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.40,000/- peracre for irrigated dry lands in O.P. No.241 of 1995 and batch underjudgment, dated 20-04-2000, while lesser compensation wasgranted for similar lands herein. The lands were acquired undercommon award based on common evidence and commondocuments and hence, the claimants desired compensation atRs.34,000/- and Rs.40,000/- per acre respectively.

Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned Government Pleaderfor the appellant and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned counsel forthe respondents/cross-objectors.

The common judgment in A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch,dated 14-09-2006 is relied on by the respondents/cross-objectors.

The point for consideration is what was the probableprevailing market value of the lands acquired by the date ofnotification under Section 4(1) of the Act and accordingly whetherthe value fixed by the reference Court has to be enhanced orreduced.

Point:

In A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch, a Division Bench of thisCourt decided by its common judgment on merits on 14-09-2006that compensation should be fixed at Rs.33,000/- per acre for wetlands and Rs.31,000/- per acre for dry lands in respect of thelands acquired under O.P. No.242 of 1995 and batch for thepurpose of excavation of the left main canal of Priyadarshini JuralaProject. The notification therein under Section 4(1) of the Act wason 21-10-1992, while the notification under Section 4(1) of the Actherein was on 21-01-1992, though the acquisition was for the same purpose. Inrespect of Ac.47-08 guntas acquired in that batch of cases, Ac.21-08 guntas were the subject of the appeals, for which the LandAcquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acrefor irrigated dry lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands. TheSenior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in a common order under Section18 references, dated 20-04-2000 enhanced the compensation toRs.40,000/- and Rs.34,000/- respectively per acre on the evidenceof P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 primarily relying on Ex.A.1 saledeed. In the common judgment, the Division Bench of this Courtnoted that Ex.A.1 sale deed, dated 21-04-1990 was for a sale price of Rs.26,000/- per acre and if 20% escalation was given for twoyears, the compensation payable would be Rs.31,000/- for drylands and Rs.33,000/- for wet lands per acre. The Division Benchfurther noted that higher compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acregranted in some other cases was in respect of the lands in faraway villages, though for the very same purpose and hence, tookinto account only the value of the lands in that village. Relying onEx.A.1 itself, the compensation was reduced to Rs.33,000/- peracre for wet lands and Rs.31,000/- per care for dry lands.

The lands covered by A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch andthe lands covered by the present appeals are all located inShakapur village and were notified for acquisition in 1992 itself,though appearing to be separated by 9 months in between. Therewould not have been any significant or substantial variation in theprices of the agricultural lands in rural areas within a period of 10months and on the basis of Ex.A.1 transaction relied on in thatbatch of cases, which was just 3 months after the notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act in the present case, the samevaluation adopted by the Division Bench can be safely adopted inthe present case also.

The reference Court in the impugned common orderanalysed the rival contentions and the evidence very carefully andit is seen from the said order that R.W.1, who marked Ex.B.1award, did not appear to have thrown any further light on thequestions in controversy practically leaving the evidence for theclaimants uncontroverted and unchallenged. The acquired landshaving source of irrigation, is not in dispute and the lands beingunder cultivation by the time of acquisition, is also not denied. While sales statistics were stated to be unavailable in respect ofcategory I lands, the award itself was referred to by the referenceCourt as referring to the strategic location of the village and all the basic civic amenities being available in the village like schools,public call office, electricity, post office, etc. P.W.4 is the witnesswho obtained decree in O.P. No.306 of 1995 and batch in whichcompensation was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry landsand Rs.45,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands and his cross-examination did not bring out any significant variance in thefeatures of both the lands so as to treat the acquired lands astotally inferior in potentiality or fertility. The transactions spokento by P.W.3 about Ex.A.1 and P.W.5 about Ex.A.2 were notdoubted by the reference Court and though the Land AcquisitionOfficer was claimed to have considered Ex.A.2 to beundependable, the reference Court had given cogent reasons as towhy it can be acted upon, replication of which in this judgment isnot necessary. If so, there was sufficient material for justifyingthe conclusion of the reference Court that Ex.A.2 sale can bedepended upon together with the required escalation of 10% perannum. However, the reference Court reduced the valueassessed by it by Rs.1,200/- per acre for no explicable reasonsand the value fixed by the Division Bench in the other batch ofappeals more or less tallies with the assessment made by thereference Court herein. As the judgment in A.S. No.3449 of 2000and batch had become final, it will be a safe and sure guide to beadopted for arriving at the probable market value of the lands inthe present cases also. Therefore, the value fixed by thereference Court can be marginally enhanced adopting the ratesfixed by the Division Bench in other batch of appeals.

In so far as the consequential statutory benefits areconcerned, while the additional amount and solatium would beavailable on the enhanced compensation, the confinement ofpayment of interest to original compensation only but not onsolatium and additional amount, is not in tune with the statutory provisions and interest has to be awarded on the enhancedcompensation, solatium and additional amount also from the dateof notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not from the dateof taking possession, possession being anterior to the notification. So, the impugned awards have to be modified to that extent infavour of the claimants, while the challenge by the State should fail.

Conclusion

In the result, A.S. Nos.215 of 2002, 434 of 2002 and 1029 of2002 are dismissed without costs and the cross-objections thereinrespectively are allowed to the extent of modifying the respectiveawards by enhancing the compensation payable to Rs.33,000/- peracre for wet lands and Rs.31,000/- per acre for dry lands alongwith additional amount of 12% per annum from the date ofnotification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the award,solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from the date ofnotification under Section 4(1) of the Act for one year and at 15%per annum thereafter till payment on the enhanced compensation,solatium and additional amount. The parties shall bear their owncosts.

_____________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

________________

K.G. SHANKAR, J

Date: 30-12-2010Svv