AS/535/1998 of K. Yemma Reddy, Vs The LA Officer / Spl. Dy. Collector, on 30 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND TEN

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKARA.S.No.535 of 1998

Between:

K. Yemma Reddy

AND

.. Appellant

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-SpecialDeputy Collector, SRSP, Pochampad

.. Respondent

JUDGMENT: (Per. G. Bhavani Prasad, J)

The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.281 of1990 dated 29-3-1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge,Nizamabad.

Ac.588.16 guntas of Patta land in Maggidi village wereacquired to provide for submergence under Sreeram Sagar Projectand the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation ofRs.3,000/- for DSW lands, Rs.2,480/- for SCW lands, Rs.500/- fordry lands, Rs.2,160/- for WSC lands and the appellant herein isthe owner of Ac.15-10 guntas in Sy.Nos.17, 71 and 74, which werealso acquired. On the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.9349of 1982 dated 12-1-1985, the Land Acquisition Officer made areference to the Civil Court in respect of said lands under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Claimants 2 to 14 impleaded themselves as per orders in I.A.No.1333 of 1990 in the samereference. The claimants stated that the then prevailing marketvalue of the lands was Rs.20,000/- for DCW lands, Rs.15,000/- forSCW lands and Rs.10,000/- for dry lands. Even the other landswere costing Rs.5,000/- for dry BC land and Rs.3,500/- per acrefor dry chalka land. The annual income was also significant andthe claimant, hence, sought for enhancement of thecompensation. The appellant in particular claimed that his landwas yielding an annual income of Rs.5,000/- and had trees worthRs.3,000/- each, the lands being not less than Rs.7,000/- per acrein value.

The Reference Court examined PWs.1 and 2 and markedExs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.B.1 during the enquiry and rendered theimpugned award considering the questions of the then prevailingmarket value and the entitlement of the claimants 2 to 14 to anyrelief herein.

The Reference Court in the impugned award considered thatthe claim of the claimants 2 to 14 for enhancement is outside thescope of the Reference Court and subject to their right, if any,under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants 2 to14 were not entitled to any relief from the Civil Court.

The Reference Court then referred to the evidence of the 1[st]claimant-PW.1 about his lands in Sy.Nos.17, 71 and 74 having 80mango trees and 135 tamarind trees and his raising crops likemaize, turmeric, garlic, chillies etc., in the lands earning an annualincome of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre. The Reference Courtalso referred to his evidence about the value of and income fromthe trees and his reliance on Ex.A.7-Judgment in O.P.No.265 of1984 relating to acquisition of lands in the same village. TheReference Court also noted that the Patwari of the village as PW.2

stated PW.1 to be owning land in S.Nos.17, 71 and 74 and the landin S.No.17 to be SCW land, whereas the land in Sy.Nos.71 and 74to be registered as dry land, but irrigated through tank water asshown in Exs.A.1 to A.6-Pahanies. The Reference Court relied onEx.A.7-Judgment as even the Land Acquisition Officer could notgather any sales statistics and took note of the Land AcquisitionOfficer working out the value of the trees in Sy.Nos.71 and 74while awarding compensation. It considered the appellant hereinto be entitled to Rs.4,500/- per acre for the land in Sy.No.17 andRs.2,500/- per acre for dry lands in Sy.Nos.71 and 74 as perEx.A.7-Judgment and enhanced the market value accordingly,while fixing the value of the trees also at the rates adopted byEx.A.7. The Reference Court also recorded the entitlement of theappellant to the consequential statutory benefits.

The appellant-claimant herein contended that the land inSy.No.71 to an extent of Ac.13.11 guntas was cultivated asBagayat land, which was shown as such in the Pahanies from1965-66 to 1970-71 in Exs.A.1 to A.6. Compensation ought tohave been awarded at Rs.6,750/- per acre as awarded to the otherlands in the same village and Ex.A.7-Judgment should have beenadopted in respect of this land in such a manner and hence, theappeal.

Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Appeals are heard.

The point for consideration is as to what was theprobablised prevailing market rate at the relevant time in respectof Ac.13.11 guntas in Sy.No.71.

It should be first noted that the lands of the appellant in Sy.Nos.17 and 74, which were also the subject of acquisition andthe subject of the impugned order, are not the subject matter ofthis appeal.

The consideration of this appeal is confined only to anextent of Ac.13.11 guntas in Sy.No.71 of Maggidi village of oldArmoor Taluk, Nizamabad. The value granted by the ReferenceCourt under the impugned award in respect of tamarind and mangotrees located in Sy.Nos.17, 71 and 74 is also not the subjectmatter of the present consideration.

Coming to the probable prevailing market value of the landat the time of notification for acquisition, the Reference Court tookEx.A.7-Judgment in O.P.No.265 of 1984 on the file of theAdditional District Judge’s Court, Nizamabad, as the basis in theabsence of any sales statistics provided by either party and in thelight of the acquisition for the same purpose in the same villagebeing near in point of time and further being in respect ofcomparable lands. The adoption of Ex.A.7 as the basis at thearriving market value also cannot be seriously in dispute. However, the Reference Court took the land in Sy.No.71 as a dryland as classified in the revenue records on the ground thatcompensation was being granted for the trees located in the saidland. However, the appellant as PW.1 stated on oath about hisraising crops like maize, turmeric, garlic, chillies etc., in this landand the other two lands notwithstanding the existence of the treestherein and his earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per annum peracre from such crops was not contradicted by any evidence forthe Referring Officer. While an element of exaggeration with theaim of getting higher compensation maybe a natural phenomenon,the evidence of the Patwari of the village as PW.2 is about theland registered as dry being irrigated through tank water. PW.2was not alleged or shown to be having such interest in the

appellant as to resort to falsehood and he specifically denied thedry land having no sources of supply of tank water. If the landthough registered as dry was being irrigated through tank water, itcould have been considered to be answering the description of atleast a dry land cultivated as a single crop wet land, if notconsidered as a dry land cultivated as Bagayat land. Taking intoaccount that there are significant number of tamarind and mangotrees located in the land, making a significant extent of theacquired land unavailable for the cultivation of other crops,adopting the value of dry land cultivated as a single crop wet landmay be reasonable and in the absence of any sales statistics orother dependable material, an element of guess and estimatebecomes inevitable in adopting the value of the land as in Ex.A.7Judgment to the land in Sy.No.71. Taking an overall view of theevidence on record, it appears just and reasonable to fix themarket value of the land in Sy.No.71 at Rs.4,500/- per acre, basedon the uncontroverted claims of PWs.1 and 2 without interferingwith the value of the trees granted by the impugned award. If thevalue of the trees were to be taken into account, the compensationso fixed will not be considerably less than the compensation fixedfor Bagayat land in Ex.A.7. The amount has to be modifiedaccordingly, while of course making the appellant entitled to theconsequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.

Therefore, the award, dated 29-3-1995 in O.P.No.281 of1990 on the file of the Additional District Judge’s Court,Nizamabad, is modified by enhancing the compensation payable inrespect of Ac.13.11 guntas of Sy.No.71 of Maggidi village in theerstwhile Armoor Taluk of Nizamabad District to Rs.4,500/- peracre with all consequential statutory benefits as originally grantedby the impugned award on the compensation awarded by it beingextended to the enhanced compensation also.

The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs.

_____________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

________________

K. G. SHANKAR, J

Date: 30-12-2010

Ksn