LAAS/614/2006 of V. Durgamba Vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 30 December 2014

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALEANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

L.A.A.S.No.614 of 2006and

L.A.A.S.No.118 of 2007

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

These appeals, under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) are filed by theclaimants, seeking enhancement of compensation,aggrieved by the common award and decrees dated09.09.2005 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.90 and 91 of 1997respectively, by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, assuch, they are heard together and disposed of by thiscommon judgment.

2. Land belonging to the appellants-claimants to anextent of Ac.0.41 cents each, covered byR.S.No.160/3C2, situated at Vuyyuru village and mandalof Krishna District, was acquired under the provisions Act,for the purpose of formation of bypass road to cart yard inthe premises of K.C.P. Limited, Vuyyuru. Notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazetteon 22.02.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer, afterconducting necessary enquiry, passed Award No.1/93 on29.12.1992, fixing market value of the acquired land atRs.30,000/- per acre. While fixing such market value, theLand Acquisition Officer has relied on sale item No.7/88, dated 28.12.1988 referred in the award. Feelingaggrieved and not satisfied with the marked value so fixedby the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants-claimantssought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, reference was made to the Court of theSenior Civil Judge, Gudivada and their claims wereregistered as L.A.O.P.Nos.90 and 91 of 2007 respectively.

3. Before the reference court, both the O.Ps., wereclubbed and common evidence was recorded. On behalfof the appellants-claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examinedand Exs.A.1 to A.40 were marked. On behalf of thereferring officer, Land Acquisition Officer was examined asR.W.1 and copy of the award dated 29.12.1992 wasmarked as Ex.B.1.

4. The reference court, having considered the oral anddocumentary evidence on record, mainly on the groundthat the appellants-claimants have not produced anydocumentary evidence to prove higher market value thanthat was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, passed theimpugned award dismissing the L.A.O.Ps. Aggrievedthereby, the appellants-claimants preferred these appeals.

5. We have heard Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counselfor the appellants-claimants and the learned GovernmentPleader for Appeals for the respondent-Land AcquisitionOfficer.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for theappellants-claimants that, when the notification underSection 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette, themarket value was about Rs.4,84,000/-; though the LandAcquisition Officer himself referred to several documents,however, discarded several other documents, withoutassigning valid reasons and fixed market value based ondocument No.3558 dated 28.12.1998, under whichAc.0.78 cents of land was sold at Rs.29,487/- per acre. Itis further contended that, during the year 1989-90, saleswere effected in the vicinity of the land acquired, at therate of Rs.9,68,000/- per acre; in spite of the same, suchsales were not considered and no valid reasons arerecorded for not considering the same. It is furthercontended that as the appellants-claimants were notresiding at Vuyyuru, they were not aware of thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Act and they havealso sold plots, out of the acquired land by entering intoagreements of sale through power of attorney, at the rateof Rs.145/- per square yard; as such, they are entitled forcompensation for the acquired land at the same rate.

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learnedGovernment Pleader for the respondent, that in the oralevidence, except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3,there is no other independent evidence on record. It isfurther submitted that no sale transactions were filed before the reference court showing higher market value;as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the awardof the reference court.

8. We have perused the award passed by the LandAcquisition Officer and also the common award passed bythe reference court in L.A.O.P.Nos.90 and 91 of 1997. Though the appellants-claimants are claiming highermarket value for the acquired land than that was fixed bythe Land Acquisition Officer in his award, they have notadduced any legally acceptable evidence to accept theirclaim. On behalf of the appellants-claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3were examined. P.Ws.1 and 2 are claimants and P.W.3 isthe nephew of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the documentaryevidence, Exs.A.1 to A.40 are filed, which are registeredsale deeds, agreements of sales, power of attorney,consent agreements etc. So far as sale transactions areconcerned, all those are subsequent to the publication ofnotification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is clear fromthe evidence on record that the appellants-claimants havenot filed any documents relating to the sale transactions,prior to the publication of 4(1) notification, reflecting highermarket value. In the absence of any such evidencebefore the reference court, merely on the ground thatsome documents reflecting higher market value werereferred to, in the award passed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer, the appellants-claimants are not entitled to seekenhancement of compensation. It is well settled that claimants in land acquisition proceedings have to provetheir claim for higher compensation by adducing oral anddocumentary evidence. The sale transactions which arereferred to by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants are not placed on record, as such, they cannotbe taken as exemplars for the purpose of fixing marketvalue.

9. It is true that some sale instances which werereferred by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award reflecthigher market value than what was fixed by him in theaward. But, at the same time, it is clear that suchdocuments relate to house-sites in developed layouts,whereas, it is clear from the evidence on record that, landunder acquisition is registered as agricultural dry land inrevenue records. In that view of the matter, thedocuments relating to house-sites, whereunder smallextents of lands were sold for housing purpose, cannot beplaced reliance upon, more so when they are not evenbrought on record on behalf of the appellants-claimants insupport of their claim for enhancement of market value. Appellants-claimants have also not produced anyevidence to show the distance between the acquired landand the land covered by the aforesaid documents, whichare referred to in the award passed by the LandAcquisition Officer.

10. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the reasons recorded by the reference court in the impugnedaward, we are of the view that no case is made out by theappellants-claimants, so as to interfere with the impugnedaward.

11. The appeals are devoid of merits and areaccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As asequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in theappeals stand closed.

___________________

DILIP B. BHOSALE, J

December 30, 2014Skmr/MRR

_____________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J