AS/2094/2004 of G. Rama Murthy Raju Vs The Land Acquistion Officer on 31 December 2014

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYA.S.Nos.2094, 2108 of 2004 and L.A.A.S.No.202 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

All these appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arefiled by the claimants in O.P.Nos.70, 68 of 1993 and L.A.O.P.No.69 of1993 respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, aggrievedby the common order and decrees dated 09.09.2003, as such, they areheard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Land Admeasuring Ac.19.64 cents covered by R.S.No.397/1A, 397/2A-1 and 397/2A-2 of Mathannagudem of Jangareddigudem mandal,belonging to the appellants-claimants, was acquired under the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of foreshore submersionand submersion area under Yerrakalva Reservoir Scheme. Notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on31.10.1991. Possession of the land in question was taken earlier to thenotification, i.e. on 30.07.1988. The aforesaid land was classified in theRevenue accounts as “dry land”. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.6.00cents covered by R.S.No.397/1A belongs to the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.69of 1993, an extent of Ac.8.64 cents covered by R.S.No.397/2A2, belongsto the claimant in O.P.No.68 of 1993 and the remaining extent of Ac.5.00cents covered by R.S.No.397/2A1 belongs to the claimant in O.P.No.70 of1993. The aforesaid land was covered by bamboo plantation and therewere also 43 cashewnut trees in the land belonging to the claimant inO.P.No.68 of 1993. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conductingnecessary enquiry, has passed Award No.50/1993 on 15.10.1993, byfixing value of the land at Rs.22,157/- per acre. He awarded an amount ofRs.1,00,836/- towards value of the bamboo plantation to the claimant inL.A.O.P.No.69 of 1993, Rs.4,202/- to the claimant in O.P.No.70 of 1993and Rs.54,962/- to the claimant in O.P.No.68 of 1993. Further, an amountof Rs.23,040/- was awarded towards the value of cashewnut trees to the claimant in O.P.No.68 of 1993 and also an amount of Rs.39,117/- towardsthe value of the borewell. The Land Acquisition Officer has also awardedother statutory benefits like solatium, additional market value and interest.

3. Not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, theappellants-claimants received compensation under protest and soughtreference under Section 18 of the Act and their claims were referred to theCourt of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur and numbered as O.P.Nos.70 and68 of 1993 and L.A.O.P.No.69 of 1993 respectively.

4. Before the reference court, mainly, it was the case of the appellants-claimants that the Land Acquisition Officer has not assigned any reasonfor not accepting the exemplar sale transactions which were showingmarket value ranging in between Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acreduring the relevant time. It was further their case that the Land AcquisitionOfficer has not taken the value of average yield into consideration, byapplying the relevant multiplier and the bamboo plantation raised in theacquired land is a permanent income asset giving yield every year with aspecific life span and they were getting Rs.20,000/- worth yield per annum.Accordingly, they prayed to fix value of the land at Rs.1,50,000/- per acreand tree growth at the minimum rate of Rs.20,000/- yield per annum for aperiod of 40 years.

5. Before the reference court, common evidence was let in. On behalf ofthe appellants-claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.17were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, R.W.1 was examined andExs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

6. The reference court, by the impugned common order, while consideringthe oral and documentary evidence on record, has fixed the value of theland at Rs.25,848/- per acre and confirmed the value of the bambooplantation, cashewnut trees and borewell. Aggrieved by the said commonorder, the present appeals are filed.

7. We have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for theappellants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for therespondents and perused the material on record.

8. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellantsadvanced the following contentions:

Possession of the land in question was taken earlier to the publication ofthe notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Possession of the land wastaken on 30.07.1988 whereas notification under Section 4(1) of the Actcame to be published in the Gazette on 31.10.1991. Inspection of the landin question was made in the year 1993 and by that time bamboo plantationwas inundated with the water of Errakalava Reservoir. Though there weremore than 190 clumps per acre in the land in question, however, based onthe inspection made in the year 1993, the Land Acquisition Officer hasnoted 834 clumps in the land belonging to the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.69 of1993, 59 clumps in the land belonging to the claimant in O.P.No.70 of1993 and 826 clumps belonging to the claimant in O.P.No.68 of 1993. Asthe bamboo plantation was already inundated by the time of inspection,less number of clumps were noted and by adopting capitalisation methodand based on the said number of clumps noted during inspection in theyear 1993, compensation has been awarded. Though the life of bambooplantation is about 40 years, however, the Land Acquisition Officer hasapplied the multiplier ‘8’ only. The appellants-claimants are entitled forfixation of value by applying multiplier ‘12’. In any event, there is no reasonfor discarding the documentary evidence under Ex.A.2, under which landcovered by R.S.No.1, was sold at the rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre. If not bycapitalisation method, appellants-claimants are entitled for fixation ofmarket value at the rate as reflected under Ex.A.2, which is a saletransaction dated 10.09.1991. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, in support of the claim for applying higher multiplier than thatwas applied, relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TheState of W.B., v. Shyamapada etc., and Union of India and another v.Smt. Shanti Devi and others.

9. On the other hand, the following contentions are advanced by thelearned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent:

For the purpose of valuing the bamboo growth on the acquired land, reportwas called for from the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, who has inspected

the land and submitted report. In the report, it is stated that as per thesilvicuture principles, matured bamboos in the bamboo plantation or innatural bamboo forests have to be harvested on a three year felling cycle.As such, one felling cycle can be considered as one rotation in threeyears. The said inspection was made along with the Deputy ExecutiveEngineer, Y.R. & D.R. Division, J.R. Gudem and the enumeration detailsare tabulated in Annexure-I enclosed to the report marked under Ex.B.2.The existing number of clumps in each survey number were noted. Assuch, in absence of any acceptable evidence on record, it is not open forthe appellants to claim that more number of clumps were existing at therelevant time. From the evidence on record, it is clear that, at the time ofacquisition, the bamboo plantation was 17 years old, as such, in view ofthe felling cycle, which is once in three years, the reference court as rightlyapplied multiplier ‘8’ while awarding compensation. Ex.A.2 is a document,which has come into existence after taking possession of the land inquestion and the same is a boosted sale for the purpose of claiming highercompensation, as such, it was rightly discarded by the reference court.Having regard to the compensation awarded to the land in addition to thetree value, i.e. bamboo plantation and cashewnut trees and permanentstructures, there are no grounds to interfere with the award of thereference court to enhance compensation any further.

10. In view of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel forthe parties, the issues which arise for consideration are:

1. While adopting capitalisation method for the purpose of fixing marketvalue for the acquired land, whether the reference court has taken thecorrect number of clumps and the appropriate multiplier intoconsideration?

2. Whether Ex.A.2 can be taken as comparable sale for the purpose offixing market value for the acquired land?

11. It is to be noted that possession of the land in question was taken on30.07.1988, whereas notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to beissued on 31.10.1991. From the oral evidence led on behalf of theappellants-claimants, it is clear that, at the time of acquisition, bamboo

plantation was 17 years old. Merely because some water has entered intothe land in question, it cannot be said that there was no possibility ofcounting the number of clumps existing as on the relevant date. It cannotbe disputed that bamboos grow vertically and even according to theappellants, the bamboo growth was 17 years old at the relevant time. Thecontention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that therewere more number of clumps than that were mentioned in the award.However, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason, that atthe instance of the Joint Collector, the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, hasinspected the land and prepared report, which was marked as Ex.B.2.From a perusal of Ex.B.2, it is clear that joint inspection was conducted bythe Divisional Forest Officer along with the Deputy Executive Engineer,Y.R. & D.R. Division, J.R. Gudem on 25.09.1993 and enumeration resultsare given in the tabulation form in Annexure-I of the report. From a perusalof the report, it is clear that no guidelines have been issued either by theGovernment or the Forest Department for assessing the value of thebamboos in the bamboo plantation. Though Government issued guidelinesvide G.O.Ms.No.601 dated 19.06.1992 for valuation of orchards, it is silentwith regard to bamboo growth. Further, as Divisional Forest Officer is aperson having technical knowledge on the subject in question and in viewof the detailed report under Ex.B.2, there is no reason to discard the same,so as to accept the claim of the appellants-claimants that 190 clumps peracre should have been taken into consideration.

12. Even with regard to the other contention, viz., to apply higher multiplierthan ‘8’ for the purpose of fixing market value, under capitalisation method,it is to be seen that, except the claim of the appellants-claimants that theywere harvesting the bamboo crop every year, there is no legallyacceptable evidence on record to show that every year, appellants-claimants were harvesting matured bamboos and getting income asclaimed by them. When a person having technical expertise has statedthat felling cycle of bamboo is once in three years, there is no reason todiscard the same. If the bamboo is cut every year, as claimed by theappellants, the growth of bamboo will not be at the matured stage; as

such, the claim of the appellants that they were getting income every yearout of the bamboo cannot be accepted. Further, the permits which aremarked on behalf of the appellants-claimants do not show that they wereissued for the purpose of transporting bamboo growth from the land inquestion. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that such permitsfiled on behalf of the appellants-claimants would not render any assistancein support of the claim of the appellants-claimants that they wereharvesting bamboo every year and getting an income of Rs.20,000/- perannum. Though learned senior counsel for the appellants-claimants reliedon the decisions 1 and 2 supra, in support of the claim for applying highermultiplier than that was applied, i.e. ‘8’, it is to be noticed that theapplication of multiplier depends on several factors, viz., nature of landand the category of crop etc. Now, it is well settled that in the absence ofany sale data, standard multiplier ‘10’ is to be applied unless otherwisespecial reasons are recorded for departure. It is further to be noticed thatthe land is registered as “dry land” in revenue records and the appellants-claimants are claimingthat they have raised bamboo plantation therein. Even according to theappellants-claimants, life of bamboo plantation is about 40 years and asper the evidence of P.W.1, the age of the bamboo plantation was 17 yearseven by the date of the 4(1) notification. If the same is considered coupledwith the documentary evidence under Ex.B.2, which is a report preparedby a technical expert, indicating that harvesting cycle is once in threeyears, we are of the view that the reference court has rightly appliedmultiplier ‘8’ while fixing compensation. As such, we are of the view thatthe said judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for theappellants-claimants would not render any assistance in support of theclaim of the appellants-claimants, for applying higher multiplier.

13. With reference to the second issue, viz., whether Ex.A.2 can be takenas comparable sale for the purpose of fixing market value for the acquiredland, though it is contended by the learned senior counsel for theappellants-claimants, that taking Ex.A.2 as comparable sale, appellants-claimants are entitled for fixation of market value, however, from a perusalof the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is clear that, for a

period of three years preceding the date of notification, there were nosales at all in Mathannagudem village. However, there were transactionsin the adjoining village of Vallampatla. It is also clear from the award of theLand Acquisition Officer that market value of similar land during the years1989-90 was ranging between Rs.7,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. With regard tosale transaction covered by R.S.No.139/2, which is a transaction made inthe year 1991, rate was shown as Rs.16,801/- per acre only. Hence, thesale transaction covered by Ex.A.2, in R.S.No.1, which was executed atthe rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre has rightly been discarded by thereference court inasmuch as it appears, Ex.A.2 has been executed only toboost the market rate to claim more compensation. As much as it is not indispute that possession of the land was taken in the year 1982 and in viewof the considerable difference in the price reflected in Ex.A.2 compared tothe earlier sale deeds, we are of the view that such document is alsorightly discarded by the reference court while fixing market value of theacquired land. Further, it is to be noticed that, having fixed market valuefor the land in question by adopting capitalisation method, the referencecourt itself has fixed separate compensation towards the value of thetrees, i.e. bamboo plantation and cashewnut trees and the structures, i.e.borewell etc., and further the land in question is registered as “dry land” in the revenue accounts. We are of the view that the marketvalue fixed by reference court is just and reasonable and there are nogrounds to interfere with the impugned order.

14. The appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Noorder as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the appeals standclosed.

____________________DILIP B. BHOSALE, J

______________________

December, 2014

MRR

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J