AS/352/1999 of SPL.DY.COLLECTOR/LA/SLBC/NALGONDA Vs Y.LACHAIAH AND 14 OTHERS on 31 December 2010

(1) Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable?

(2) To what relief?

-POINTS:

Evidently, when a reference is made to the civil court theclaimants are in the position of the plaintiffs in a civil suit andburden is on them to prove the real market value based onpotentialities or comparative sales. In this case, the claimantNo.7 was examined as PW.1 and according to him the village Narasinghabatla is situated at a distance of 14 to 15 kilometresfrom Nalgonda and there are good communication facilities andthe acquired lands are fertile and cash crops, such as groundnut, sun flower, cotton and castor were being acquired. PW.2was examined to prove that he along with his brother soldagricultural land to one M.Muthaiah in the year 1986 atRs.40,000/- per acre though the sale deed shows onlyRs.24,000/-. The learned Senior Civil Judge did not accept thesale transaction since it is for a lesser extent. Having found sothe learned Senior Civil Judge in paragraphs 13 and 14,observed as under:- Para.13: Before considering the claim of the claimant,it is useful to refer to a judgment reported in AIR 1988 S.Cpage 1652, where in it was held that in a reference underSection 17 of the L.A.Act, the court has to treat that thereference as an original proceeding, and the claimant is ina position of the plaintiff, who has to show that the priceoffered for his land in the award is inadequate, on thebasis of material produced in the court. Of course, thematerial placed and proved by the other side, can also betaken into account for his purpose. The court has todetermine the market value afresh on the basis of thematerial produced before it.

Para.14: Having regard the day to day hiking inprices of land values and further considering the locationand potentiality of the acquired land, I am of the view thatthe market value fixed by the L.A.O at Rs.5,100/- per acreis not sufficient and reasonable and this court bereasonably fixed at Rs.9,000/- per acre for the agriculturalland.”

Conclusion

Evidently, having stated the legal position referring to theSupreme Court’s Judgment, sofar as the application isconcerned, the learned Senior Civil Judge has given go-bye.The learned Senior Civil Judge has taken into consideration theday to day hiking in the prices of the land value aad also thepotentiality and locality. Evidently, there are no comparablesales placed before the court to show that there was a hike inthe market value. The land was acquired in a village and in thelarger extent of Ac.50.00 guntas. The potentialities of urban hood or semi-urban living does not arise, though when a tallclaim was made that good crops were realised, no adangalextract was filed and no village officer was examined and noneighbours were also examined. So also, to prove thepotentialities of the village, no record was summoned and noofficers were examined. Merely because the village is nearer tohead-quarters, it does not mean that its’ value is high. It cannotbe lost sight of the fact that even during the years of acquisitionin 1986, even the head-quarter of Nalgonda is not very welldeveloped. Therefore, the general reasoning of location andpotentialities adopted by the learned Senior Civil Judge de hors the factual element and approach of the lower court. IfEx.A-1 is excluded under consideration, there is absolutely noevidence to the contrary to hold that the market value fixed bythe Land Acquisition Officer is not real. The court cannot enterinto guess work of its own without some material to support theconclusion. Therefore, it has to be held that the enhancementgranted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is based on noevidence and requires to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside theorder of the lower court insofar as it relates to enhancement ofthe compensation from Rs.5,100/- to Rs.9,000/- per acre for theacquired lands. It is needless to say that if the compensationfixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the benefits underamended Act are not given, as per the decision reported inSunder Vs. Union of India([[1]])the claimants will be entitled toand they can approach to the court below. No order as to costs.

___________________

GODA RAGHURAM,J

_______________________

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J

[1]2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).