LAAS/432/2008 of Nellore Narsinga Rao Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. on 31 December 2010

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

L.A.A.S.NO.432 OF 2008

DATED DECEMBER, 2010

BETWEEN

Nellore Narasinga Rao and Others Appellants/Claimants .…

And

Revenue Divisional Officer,

Nellore and another. … Respondents/

Referring Officer

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

L.A.A.S.NO.432 OF 2008

JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J)

Dissatisfied with the Order and Decree dated 02.06.2008 inL.A.O.P.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,Nellore, claimants 2 to 5 therein are in appeal before this Court. By thesaid Order and Decree, the reference Court enhanced the marketvalue of the acquired land from Rs.15,000/- per acre to Rs.30,000/- peracre.

An extent of Ac.3.96¼ cents of land in CAS No.446 of NelloreBit-I Village, Nellore District, was acquired under notification dated20.03.1980 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) for the purpose of providing housesites to weaker sections. Award No.1/81 dated 18.03.1981 waspassed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value ofthe acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre. The AnjaneyaswamyDevasthanam, Santhapet, Nellore, the first claimant in the O.P. and thesecond respondent herein, was shown as the owner of the acquiredland. It received the compensation so determined and soughtreference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. This reference wastaken on file as O.P.No.105 of 1981 by the reference Court and was re-numbered as O.P.No.253 of 1985 upon transfer. It was howeverdismissed for default by order dated 24.01.1986.

While so, the appellants herein along with one NellorePurushothama Rao filed Writ Petition No.15448 of 1988 before this Court claiming that they were the true owners of the subject acquiredland and praying for the quashing of the acquisition proceedingsinitiated behind their back. This Court, by order dated 30.01.1997,directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to thecompetent Court under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. Liberty wasgiven to the appellants herein that, in the event of their success in suchproceedings, it would be open to them to revive the Section 18reference in O.P.No.253 of 1985.

The matter was therefore referred to the Court of the Senior CivilJudge, Nellore, under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 in O.P.No.5 of1998. By order dated 24.09.2001, the said Court declared that theappellants herein were alone entitled to receive the compensation inrespect of the subject acquired land. The amount erroneously paid tothe Devasthanam was accordingly withdrawn and remitted to theappellants. Exercising the liberty given to them by this Court, theappellants filed I.A.No.469 of 2002 in O.P.No.253 of 1985 seekingrestoration of the Section 18 reference proceedings. By order dated29.03.2004 passed in the said I.A., the reference Court revived thereference which was thereupon transferred to the Court of the PrincipalSenior Civil Judge, Nellore, and re-numbered as L.A.O.P.No.65 of2004.

The appellants, in their claim statement before the referenceCourt, stated that the acquired land was situated adjacent to the MiniBypass Road, Nellore, and was classified as wet land under theAyacut of Nellore Tank. They claimed that the market value of the saidland would be about Rs.12,00,000/- per acre as it was fit for housesites. They pointed out that the Nellore Municipality had declared theland in CAS Nos.446 and 447 of Nellore Bit-I as a residential area asper its notification dated 21.11.1978 and therefore, the market value ofRs.15,000/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was grosslyinadequate. They sought fixation of the land value at Rs.5,00,000/- peracre and consequential compensation in accordance therewith.

The appellants examined one witness and marked eight

documents in evidence. The State examined one witness and markedone exhibit. It is clear from the deposition of the witnesses examinedby both sides that neither had personal knowledge of the landacquired or its potentialities. However, the appellants relied upon whatthey claimed to be comparative sales, marked as Exs.A.4 to A.6.These documents were however discounted by the reference Court onthe premise that they could not be taken as the basis for fixing themarket value of the acquired land. Ex.A.4 sale deed dated 24.10.1979pertained to an extent of 90 ankanams (600 ankanams = 1 acre)situated in CAS Nos.448 and 439 of Nellore Bit-I. The saleconsideration thereunder put the market value of the land atRs.3,30,000/- per acre. Ex.A.5 sale deed dated 05.11.1979 pertainedto an extent of 72 ankanams situated in CAS No.438 of Nellore Bit-Iand the sale consideration thereunder reflected the value of the land atRs.3,30,000/- per acre. Ex.A.6 sale deed dated 09.09.1978 pertainedto 121 ankanams in CAS No.448 of Nellore Bit-I and the market valueemerging therefrom was in the range of Rs.2,28,099/- per acre.

The reference Court took cognizance of the fact that theacquired land was situated close to the built up area ofRamalingapuram in Nellore Town and that it had house sitepotentiality. However, stating so, it surprisingly placed reliance uponEx.B.1 Award marked by the State and the sales statistics discussedtherein. Those sale documents had not been marked in evidence andno effort was made to establish similarities between the lands soldthereunder and the acquired land. In the absence of the same, thereference Court erred in baldly accepting the values emerging from thesale transactions discussed in Ex.B.1 as an indicator of the true marketvalue of the acquired land. Such sales statistics did not form part of theevidence before the reference Court [THE LAND ACQUISITIONOFFICER, VIJAYAWADA THERMAL STATION v. NUTALAPATIVENKATA RAO[[1]]].

Relevant to note, the claim of the appellants that the land in

Relevant to note, the claim of the appellants that the land in CAS Nos.446 and 447 of Nellore Bit-I has been declared as aresidential area in the year 1978 was not denied by the State. Thereference Court, taking note of this aspect, rightly held that theacquired land had to be considered as a residential area by the date ofthe acquisition. However, while determining the market value thereof,the reference Court surprisingly placed reliance on the claim statementof the Devasthanam, the first claimant in the O.P., which no longer hada role to play in the matter, in view of the finding that the appellantsalone were entitled to claim the compensation for the acquired land.Further, as the parties to the sale transactions under Exs.A.4 to A.6were not examined, the reference Court was of the opinion that thesame could not be relied upon for determining the market value of theacquired land. The appellants marked Ex.A.7 field map to show thelocation of the lands in CAS Nos.446, 447 and 439 of Nellore Bit-I insupport of their contention that these sale transactions were in relationto comparable lands. The reference Court did not go into this aspect atall. Merely because the extents involved in the said sale transactionswere not relatable to that of the acquired extent, the reference Courtwas not justified in eschewing them from consideration altogether.Further, it is no longer necessary for the parties to registered saledocuments to be examined for the purpose of proving the contentsthereof in the context of Section 18 reference proceedings. Thereference Court therefore ought to have considered these documentsin the proper perspective and worked out the modalities, keeping inmind the disparity in the extents involved. The error committed by thereference Court in this regard was compounded by its reliance uponthe value of Rs.60,000/- per acre claimed by the Devasthanam in thefirst instance. This claim of the Devasthanam could not be held to bean admission against the appellants as was done by the referenceCourt. The fixation of market value by the reference Court atRs.30,000/- per acre is therefore unsustainable in law.

As the reference Court, being the Court of the first instance,failed to examine and evaluate the evidence placed before it in the proper perspective, we have no alternative but to set aside the Orderand Decree under appeal and remit the matter to the reference Courtfor consideration afresh. The reference Court shall allow the parties toadduce further evidence, oral and documentary, and decide the matterin accordance with law within six (6) months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.

The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties shall bear their owncosts.

_______________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J.

_________ DECEMBER, 2010.

VGSR

____________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

[1] AIR 1991 AP 31 (FB)