AS/142/2002 of The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs Mulla Nabi Saheb ( DIED ) on 30 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TEN

PRESENT

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAndTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT No.127 OF 2002

Between:

The Revenue Divisional Officer(Land Acquisition Officer)Nandyal.

And

Kuruva Chinna Narasimhulu

APPEAL SUIT No.142 OF 2002

..... Appellant

…Respondent

Between:

The Revenue Divisional Officer(Land Acquisition Officer)Nandyal.

And

Mulla Nabi Saheb & another

APPEAL SUIT No.152 OF 2002

..... Appellant

…Respondents

Between:

The Revenue Divisional Officer(Land Acquisition Officer)Nandyal.

..... Appellant

And

Mulla Khasi Saheb

And

APPEAL SUIT No.3396 OF 2003

…Respondent

Between:

The Revenue Divisional Officer(Land Acquisition Officer)Nandyal.

And

Devagudi Pedda Khasim & another

..... Appellant

…Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAndTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT Nos.127, 142, 152 OF 2002 and 3396 of 2003

COMMON JUDGMENT:(PerHon’ble Sri Justice G. BhavaniPrasad)

These four appeals are directed against the awards passedin L.A.O.P.Nos.48, 49, 50 to 51 of 2000, on the file of the SeniorCivil Judge’s Court, Allagadda, on 22.11.2000, in pursuance ofthe common order rendered by the reference Court.

2. Ac. 9.40 cents of dry land belonging to the respondents inthese appeals respectively was acquired by the State in Alamurof Rudravaram Mandal for the purpose of restoration ofGullakunta tank near Harinagar. The draft Notification underSection 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘theAct’), was published on 10.11.1989, while possession was takenearlier on 20.04.1986. Under Award No.2/91-92, dated02.11.1991, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensationof Rs.3,000/- per acre. On protest by the claimants, the matterwas referred to the civil Court and the claimants contendedbefore the reference Court that the lands were worth Rs.15,000/-per acre. During the enquiry, the reference Court examinedR.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 and B-1.

3. It rendered the impugned common order noting that thepurchaser, under Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated01.06.1988, was examined as R.W.2 and he spoke about hispurchase of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.Nos.1237 and 342 for Rs.11,400/-. His purchase was based on the sale of Ac. 1.02cents of land by Gaddam Husan Sab for Rs.10,200/-. GaddamHusan Sab was examined as R.W.3. The reference Court opinedthat the claim of R.W.1, one of the claimants, is based on saletransactions at or about the relevant time in the village and hisclaims are corroborated by R.Ws.2 and 3. R.W.3 also deposedabout onion, kandi, ground nut and jowar being raised in thelands, all of which had similar fertility and which were yielding anincome of Rs.5,000/- per acre per annum. Except marking theaward, the Referring Officer did not produce any other evidencebefore the reference Court and the reference Court noted that theaward itself stated about the acquired lands being fertile landsirrigated under Gullakunta tank. The reference Court, under thecircumstances, found nothing to doubt the genuineness of Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.06.1988, and fixed themarket value of the acquired lands at Rs.7,000/- per acre. Thereference Court also awarded the additional market value at 12%per annum, solatium at 30% per annum and interest from the dateof taking possession i.e., 20.04.1986 at 9% per annum for oneyear and thereafter at 15% per annum till the payment of theenhanced compensation.

4. The State preferred these four appeals contending thatEx.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.06.1988, for a smallextent, could not have been relied on for fixing the market value,more so, when there was no evidence to establish the acquiredland and the land under Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated01.06.1988, to be of same potentiality and fertility.

5. Heard Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for therespondents.

6. The point for consideration is whether the market valueand the consequential benefits awarded by the reference Courtneed to be interfered with for any reason?

7. The impugned common order, dated 22.11.2000, by thereference Court extensively and exhaustively referred to theentire material on record including the contents of Ex.A-1-awardwhich itself noted the acquired lands to be fertile lands irrigatedunder a tank though classified as dry lands. The evidence ofR.Ws.2 and 3 about purchase of lands in the vicinity for a muchhigher value cannot be rejected for any reason in the absence ofany material to attribute any interestedness to R.Ws.2 and 3 soas to resort to falsehood in favour of the claimants. Theevidence of one of the claimants as R.W.1 is, thus, corroboratedby the purchase of Acre 1.14 cents for Rs.11,400/-, spoken byR.W.2 and the purchase of Acre 1.02 cents for Rs.10,200/-,spoken by R.W.3. R.W.1 specifically spoke about similar saletransactions in his village at or about the relevant time and R.W.3spoke about the potentiality of the lands in question to yield anannual income of Rs.5,000/- per acre from agriculture. R.W.3also spoke about another sale transaction of Ac. 0.12 cents ofland for Rs.1,200/- in S.No.1237 and while Notification underSection 4 (1) of the Act was on 10.11.1989, the comparable salesrelied on by R.Ws.1 to 3 were in fact much earlier and therecould have been only an escalation in price and not depreciationin value in the meanwhile, taking into account the ordinary andnatural course of human events. Still the reference Court fixedthe market value of the land a little lower and not higher and the mere fact that Ex.B-1 was for a too small extent alone need notdeter the Court from taking it as the basis for arriving at thecorrect valuation.

8. Insofar as the consequential statutory benefits awarded bythe reference Court are concerned, the interest componentawarded by the reference Court from the date of takingpossession itself anterior to Notification under Section 4 (1) ofthe Act appears to be in contravention of the principle laid downby the Apex Court in R.L. JAIN VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY AND OTHERS[[1]], wherein the Apex Court pointedout that the claimant is not entitled to any interest for the periodsince taking over possession till the issuance of the Notificationunder Section 4 (1). The Apex Court was categorical that evenon equitable ground, the claimants will not be entitled to any suchamount or interest. Therefore, the impugned award has to bemodified to that extent.

9. In the result, the awards in L.A.O.P.Nos.48, 49, 50 & 51 of2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Allagadda,dated 22.11.2000, are modified to the extent of awarding interestat 9% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 4 (1)of the Act for a period of one year and thereafter, at 15% perannum to the date of payment on the enhanced compensationand the awards are confirmed in all other respects.

10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed without costsexcept to the extent of such modification.

_______________________

(G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J)

_______________________

(K.G. SHANKAR,

J)

Date: 30[th] December, 2010

KL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAnd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT Nos.127, 142, 152 OF 2002 and 3396 of 2003(Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. BhavaniPrasad)

December 30, 2010.

KL

[1]2004 (4) SCC 79