LAAS/290/2005 of C. Balakrishna aReddy Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 31 December 2010

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

L.A.A.S.NO.290 OF 2005

DATED _________ DECEMBER, 2010

BETWEEN:

Chennu Balakrishna Reddy

And Others. … Appellant/

Claimants

and

The Special Deputy Collector (LA),

Telugu Ganga Project,

Nellore.

And Others. … Respondents/

Claimants.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEGODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICESANJAY KUMAR

L.A.A.S.NO.290 OF 2005

J U D G M E N T(Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

Not content with the enhancement effected by the referenceCourt of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, in LAOP No.2 of 1991, five ofthe claimants are before this Court in appeal.

By its Order and Decree dated 30.08.2004, the reference Courtenhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land fromRs.11,500/- per acre to Rs.15,000/- per acre. In so far as the fruitbearing trees situated on the acquired lands were concerned, thereference Court enhanced the compensation for each lemon tree fromRs.80/- to Rs.100/- but reduced the multiplier applied by the LandAcquisition Officer from 14 to 12. In the case of cheeni (sweet lime)trees, the reference Court confirmed the compensation fixed by theLand Acquisition Officer at Rs.120/- per tree and also the multiplier of14.

Appellants 1 and 5 are aggrieved by the limited enhancementboth in respect of the land as well as the trees. They seekcompensation for the land fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/- peracre. In so far as the trees are concerned, they seek compensation foreach lemon tree at Rs.150/- at the increased multiplier of 14 andRs.300/- for each cheeni tree at the increased multiplier of 16.

Appellants 2, 3 and 4 are in appeal onlyin connection with the fixationof compensation for the trees. They reiterate the claim put forth byappellants 1 and 5 in this regard.

A large extent of over 52 acres of land was acquired by the Statefor the purpose of Kandaleru reservoir under the Telugu GangaProject. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) was published on16.11.1989. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, the lands ofthe appellants situated in Thamancherla Village, Rapur Mandal,Nellore District, were acquired for this purpose.

By his Award dated 12.02.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer,upon due enquiry, determined the market value for the lands atRs.11,500/- per acre. The land of appellant 1 admeasuring Ac.2.87cents and that of appellant 5 admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents wereacquired at the said market value. Fruit bearing trees situated on thelands acquired, belonging to all the appellants, were subjectedtovalue determination for the purpose of compensation.

Dissatisfied with this exercise, the appellants along with otherssimilarly situated sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894,which was taken on file by the reference Court as LAOP No.2 of 1991.Aggrieved by the enhancement effected by the reference Court, thefive appellants are before this Court.

Five witnesses were examined by the claimants before thereference Court and ten documents were marked in evidence. Thereport of an Expert Committee constituted by the Director ofHorticulture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, was marked as Ex.A.1. TheCommittee visited various Villages including Thamancherla Village forthe purpose of determining the value of lemon trees which were likelyto be submerged under the reservoir. The Committee, upon dueconsideration, fixed the income from lemon trees per acre atRs.15,000/- per year and the income from each tree at Rs.150/- toRs.200/- per year. Deductions were recommended towards cost of cultivation from the above income.

Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, dealingwith enhancement of the market value of the land, pointed out that hisclients relied upon Exs.A.7 to A.10 sale deeds pertaining to the years1983-84. The market value emerging from the sale considerationobtaining under these sale deeds was in the range of Rs.30,000/- peracre. However, the reference Court eschewed these sale transactionsfrom consideration on the ground that the extents involved thereunderwere meager as compared to the extent of the acquired land and asthe sale transactions were prior to three years preceding the date ofthe draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894.

We find merit in the contention of Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learnedcounsel, that even though there was disparity in the extents,given thefact that the sale transactions were sufficiently anterior to theacquisition, they ought to have been taken into consideration as anindicator of true market value. The reference Court erred in ignoringthese sale transactions on the ground that they were prior to theimmediate preceding three years before the date of the Section 4(1)notification. There is no such statutory period prescribed for thepurpose of consideration and determination of the market value, aserroneously understood by the reference Court. Taking into accountthe market value emerging from these transactions and keeping inmind the disparity in the extents involved, the market value of the landsought to have been fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre. We therefore acceptthe claim of appellants 1 and 5 that their land should have been valuedat Rs.20,000/- per acre.

In so far as compensation for the fruit bearing trees isconcerned, it is relevant to note that there was no material placedbefore the reference Court in support of the claim for enhancedcompensation for the cheeni trees. Though an Expert Committee wasconstituted for the purpose of determining the compensation payablefor the lemon trees, no similar exercise was undertaken in respect of the cheeni trees.

Be that as it may, the burden was upon the appellants to placematerial before the reference Court to support their claim that thecheeni trees should have been awarded compensation at Rs.300/- pertree adopting a multiplier of 16. However, the record reflects that theappellants failed dismally in this regard and no evidence worth itsname was placed before the Court in support of this plea. Mere self-serving statements of the witnesses could not be the basis for seekingsuch enhancement.

However, in so far as the lemon trees are concerned, the reportof the Expert Committee (Ex.A.1) clearly demonstrated that the yieldfrom each lemon tree would be in the range of Rs.150/- to Rs.200/-with recommended deductions towards expenditure. Sri P.SridharReddy, learned counsel, fairly conceded that the cost of cultivation pertree would be about Rs.35/-. The Committee found that the treesinspected ranged between the ages of 7 to 12 years and that the fruitsof the trees aged 12 or more suffered degradation in size though thenumber of fruits remained the same.

Given these technical facts, which are beyond the purview ofdetermination by this Court, we are inclined to adopt the lesser valuedecided upon by the Committee, i.e., Rs.150/-, presently claimed bythe appellants. Deducting expenditure at Rs.35/- therefrom, the incomefrom each tree would be about Rs.115/-. Surprisingly, the referenceCourt failed to discuss or adopt the values indicated in Ex.A.1 report.There is no explanation forthcoming from the Order under appeal as towhy the reference Court decided upon the value of Rs.100/- per lemontree. As the Land Acquisition Officer himself applied the multiplier of14, we see no reason to differ. The reference Court also does notexplain as to why the multiplier has been reduced. The determinationby the Land Acquisition Officer, being an offer by the State, thereference Court cannot reduce or decimate the terms of the said offer.We accordingly hold that the appellants are entitled to a multiplier of 14 for the lemon trees valued at Rs.115/- per tree.

The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part holding thatappellants 1 and 5 are entitled to compensation for their landsadmeasuring Ac.2.87 cents and Ac.3.00 cents respectively inThamancherla Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District, at Rs.20,000/-per acre; and that appellants 1 to 5 are entitled to compensation forlemon trees at Rs.115/- per tree applying a multiplier of 14. The Orderunder Appeal shall stand confirmed in so far as the compensationpayable for cheeni trees is concerned. Appellants 1 and 5 shall beentitled to additional market value under Section 23(1-A) and solatiumunder Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 upon the enhanced marketvalue of Rs.20,000/- per acre and also interest thereon in accordancewith the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SUNDER V/s. UNION

OF INDIA[[1]]. Needless to state, the sum already paid to appellants 1and 5 in this regard upon the market value of Rs.15,000/- per acreshall be duly deducted while computing the aforestated amounts.

In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as tocosts.

------------------------------

GODA RAGHURAM,J

________DECEMBER, 2010

PGS

---------------------------

SANJAY KUMAR,J

[1] AIR 2001 SC 3516