AS/2180/2001 of K.CHANDRA REDDY Vs LAO RDO RR DIST. on 29 December 2011

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHANDHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKARAPPEAL SUIT Nos.2180 of 2001 and 1986 of 2002

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

While A.S.No.2180 of 2001 is filed by the claimants,A.S.No.1986 of 2002 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officeragainst the order dated 28.02.2001 passed in O.P.No.111 of1996 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, RangaReddy District.

2. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), proceedings wereinitiated for acquisition of an extent of Ac.4.19 gts. in Sy.No.62of Attapur Village for the purpose of providing house sites forweaker sections and the Land Acquisition Officer, afterdeducting 1/3[rd] towards roads and amenities, passed awarddated 01.06.1996 only in respect of an extent of Ac.2.27 guntastreating the claimants as protected tenants and fixed the marketvalue at Rs.50/- per sq. yard. Dissatisfied with the award, theclaimants sought a reference contending that, though oneAnantha Kishan Rao was the pattadar of subject land, as theywere declared as protected tenants, they were entitled tocompensation for the entire extent of Ac.4.19 guntas instead ofAc.2.27 guntas. The Reference Court held that since theclaimants were protected tenants, they were entitled tocompensation only to an extent Ac.2.27 guntas, which comes to8631 sq. yards and having deducted 1/4[th] on the price arrived atRs.360/- per sq. yard fixed the market value at Rs.270/- per sq.yard.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals submits thatExs.A.1 to A.6, sale transactions, relate to comparatively smallextents of lands and cannot form the basis or foundation forfixing the market value of the lands acquired, that the ReferenceCourt erred in deducting 1/4[th] amount from the market valuearrived at, and ought to have deducted 50% of thecompensation towards development charges for the entireextent, that the Reference Court was of the erroneous view thatthe Land Acquisition Officer has deducted 1/3[rd] of the area andthat it ought to have seen that the claimants being the protectedtenants are entitled to compensation of 60% of an extent ofAc.2.27 gts. towards their entitlement as against the total extentof A.4.19 gts.

4. The only question which arises for consideration in theseappeals is whether the market value fixed by the ReferenceCourt at the rate of Rs.270 per sq. yard is just and reasonable.

5. We shall first advert to the contention of the learnedGovernment Pleader that sale transactions relating to smallextents of land cannot form the basis for determining the marketvalue of larger extents. It is no doubt true that the Exs. A-1 to A-6 relate to small extents of land. It is also true that the acquiredland is located in urban area where there is steep rise in pricesand, therefore, it is not common that lands located in urban areawill be sold en bloc or in large tracts that can be looked into asa precedent. The Reference Court adverted to a decision of thiscourt in C.Dharma Reddy Vs. R.D.O., Miryalguda (1998(1)ALT 47) wherein a Division Bench of this court after allowing escalation charges at 20% per annum, has taken intoconsideration the prices fetched for small extents of the landsfor determining the market value for larger extents. Therefore,for the purpose of guidance, in the absence of sale transactionsin respect of larger extents, necessarily, the court has to advertto Exs. A-1 to A-6, which we presently discuss.

6. It is not in dispute that Exs.A.1 to A.6 were the saletransactions that took place in respect of different extents oflands in Sy.Nos.60, 66, 67 to 70 of Attapur Village at Rs.300 persq. yard. The claimants claim that the sale transactions coveredby the said survey numbers are nearby to the land acquired inSy.No.62 of Attapur Village. Though we are of the opinion thatthe Reference Court ought to have added 20% of escalationand, even if 20% escalation is not added, the market valueprevailing a year prior to the notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act

(as is evident from Ex.A.6) is Rs.300 per sq. yard. As 1/3[rd]area was already deducted by the Land Acquisition Officer andadmittedly the lands were acquired for house sites and the saletransactions covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 are one year prior andeven if escalation is added, it would be Rs.330 per sq. yard. TheReference Court arrived at Rs.360 per sq. yard and deducted1/4[th] and fixed the market value at Rs.270 per sq. yard. Hence,the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.270 per sq.yard appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, neither theclaimants are entitled for enhancement nor the Land AcquisitionOfficer to seek reduction of compensation.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the claimants are entitled to30% solatium and additional market value at 12% on Rs.270 per sq. yard from the date of notification under Section4(1) of the Act till the date of award, with interest at 9% perannum for one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till thedate of payment. No costs.

V.ESWARAIAH,J

Date:29.12.2011usd

N.RAVI SHANKAR,J