LAAS/1957/2005 of B. Swamy Reddy Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector (LA), on 31 December 2014

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKARNARAYANA

L.A.A.S. No.1957 OF 2005

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Shankar Narayana)

This is a claimants’ appeal. Aggrieved of the order,dated 07-10-1996, in Original Petition No.299 of 1993 on the fileof learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool,whereby and whereunder the market value fixed by theLand Acquisition Officer at Rs.2,000/- per acre wasconfirmed by the reference Court, the instant appeal ispreferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

2. By the publication of notification under Section4(1) of the Act, dated 14-12-1973, the Governmentthrough the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),Srisailam Project, Atmakur Unit at Kurnool, has acquiredAc.0-10 cents in Survey No.339/A1 and Ac.0-14 cents in Survey No.339/B belonging to originalclaimant – Bobbiti Swamy Reddy, situated inGhanapuram village of Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool Districtfor the purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project, as theextents were submergible under the said project.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer having conducted due enquiry, by taking into consideration the saletransactions during three years period preceding the dateof publication under Section 4(1) of the Act and otherrelevant factors, such as the nature of the land; source ofirrigation and crops that were used to be cultivated,passed the award fixing the market value at Rs.2,000/-per acre, by his Award No.50 of 1976, dated 14-12-1976.

4. As seen from the order under challenge, itreflects that subsequent to passing of award by the LandAcquisition Officer, the original claimant along with someothers filed Writ Petition No.7688 of 1982 before this Court seeking direction to theLand Acquisition Officer for referring their claim underSection 18 of the Act, and the writ petition was allowed on03-12-1992, affording an opportunity to the originalclaimant to file an application giving necessary detailsrelating to the number of the award and particulars ofproperty for enabling the Land Acquisition Officer to referthe claim to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Theoriginal claimant received compensation under protestand pursuant to the directions in the above writ petition,the Land Acquisition Officer made reference underSection 18 of the Act to the Civil Court and the same wasentertained by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool.

5. Before the reference Court, the original claimant,Swami Reddy examined himself as RW.1 and he hasexamined P. Lakshmi Reddy as RW.2 and markedregistration copy of sale deed, dated 25-07-1960 executed by P. Sivamma in favour of SekharReddy as Ex.X-1. On behalf of Referring Officer, nonewas examined, but marked award, dated 14-12-1976, asEx.A-1.

6. The reference Court adverted to the avermentscontained in the claim statement filed by the originalclaimant, in which, the claimant stated that the LandAcquisition Officer did not adhere to the principles as laiddown under Section 23 of the Act; that the sales relied onby the Land Acquisition Officer does not represent thecorrect market value, since the Land Acquisition Officeromitted to take into consideration the relevant sales andexamining the persons connected with the said sales indetermining the market value. It is also contended by theoriginal claimant that the Land Acquisition Officer ought tohave awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) per acre. Whilecontending that the soil of the acquired land is first gradeblack cotton and mixed red soil and ground-nut, tobacco,cotton and red-gram crops were cultivated and the LandAcquisition Officer did not make a personal visit to theacquired land for determining market value, sought to fixthe market value at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per acre with statutory benefits.

7. Before the reference Court, the original claimantrelied on sale transaction covered by Ex.X-1, whichrelates to sale of

Ac.0-03 cents of Kallam for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-executed by one Sivamma in favour of Sekhar Reddy on25-07-1960, and the oral evidence of RW.1, the originalclaimant, and RW.2 – P. Lakshmi Reddy, who is one ofthe attestors of Ex.X-1. The reference Court whileadverting to the evidence of RW.1, who asserted in hischief examination that in O.P. No.146 of 1981, the IIAdditional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kurnool has fixedthe market value at Rs.3,000/- per cent for Kallam land intheir village belonging to one Ranga Swamy, and in theappeal also, the same was confirmed, observing that theanswers given by RW.1 in his cross-examination, that hedoes not know the survey number and boundaries of landpurchased by Sekharn Reddy from Sivamma and that hedoes not know if there were sales in three yearspreceding the date of notification in their village, andculling out the presumption that since the purchaser underEx.X-1 was the adjoining owner of the land, he will beinterested in acquiring the neighbouring land and theprobability being that he was likely to pay higher rate ofmarket value for acquiring the said adjoining land, the saletransaction covered by Ex.X-1, recorded finding that it cannot be termed as representative sale for fixing themarket value for the land under acquisition.

The second circumstance mentioned by the referenceCourt for refusal to accept the sale price under Ex.X-1 is,that the sale transaction was between Dayadees i.e.,agnate cousins, and thereby discarded Ex.X-1 saletransaction. By observing that there is no other evidenceon record to substantiate the claim of the original claimantto fix the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre, refused toenhance the market value, and thereby confirmed themarket value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

8 . Aggrieved of the aforementioned order, theoriginal claimant - Bobbiti Swamy Reddy preferred theinstant appeal. The original claimant - appellant agitatesin the grounds of appeal that though, overwhelmingevidence, both, oral and documentary was adduced tosubstantiate that the market value fixed by the LandAcquisition Officer for the acquired land was highlyinadequate and unreasonable through Ex.X-1 and theevidence of RW.2 proving the sale transaction underEx.X-1, that the market value of acquired kallam was morethan Rs.2,000/- per cent on the date of notification underSection 4(1) of the Act, the reference Court did notappreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. The original claimant also submits that in respect of acquisition of similar Kallams of the same village, thereference Court awarded compensation at Rs.2,000/- percent in batches of Original Petitions and the same wereconfirmed by this Court on appeal, and, therefore, sought to enhancethe market value by fixing it at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fiftythousand only) per acre.

9. During the pendency of appeal, the originalclaimant

B. Swamy Reddy has expired. His legal representativescame on record as appellant Nos.2 and 3, as per ordersof this Court, dated 23-11-2005, in L.A.A.S.M.P. No.4685 of 2005.

10. After the legal representatives came on record,after a lapse of about six (06) years period, they havecome up with a set of petitions seeking amendment ofclaim from Rs.11,520/- to Rs.59,520/- for Ac.0-24 cents ofland, which is the subject matter herein which works out toRs.2,500/- per cent further works out to Rs.2,50,000/- peracre as against Rs.500/- per cent sought for by thedeceased claimant.

11. In the present context, we intend to refer to thepurpose behind in introducing the amendment in the claim before this Court, since there appears to be an obliquemotive behind in bringing the amendment which wouldunravel the ingenious skill employed in making a falseclaim, which we would like to elaborate hereinafter.

12. Initially, L.A.A.S.M.P. No.2071 of 2011 was filedunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section151 of C.P.C., praying this Court to condone the delay of3048 days in paying deficit court fee in the instant appeal. Simultaneously, L.A.A.S.M.P. No.2072 of 2011 was alsofiled under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to permit toamend the value of appeal from Rs.11,520/- toRs.59,520/-, along with affidavit of one of the appellants – B.R. Mangeswara Reddy. It is a common affidavit for boththe petitions. Instead of mentioning, in our own words, thereason assigned by the legal representatives of thedeceased appellant in seeking amendment, since theythrow some sort of comment at the reference Court statingthat the reference Court had shown the value mentionedby the deceased claimant as Rs.25,000/- per acre bymistake instead of showing it as Rs.2,50,000/- per acrementioned in the claim statement, we intend to extractcontents articulated in paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the affidavitaccompanying LAAS MP No.2072 of 2011, which reads thus:

“3. I humbly submit that my father preferredappeal questioning the Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Court. While filing the appealin the value of Appeal the claim was shown asRs.50,000/- per acre under misconception that theclaim petition was filed before the Reference Courtclaiming Rs.25,000/- per acre only mainly followingthe order passed by the Trial Court in O.P., wherein it is mentioned the claim was Rs.25,000/- peracre. While so, my father died on 08.01.2005pending appeal before this Hon’ble Court. 1 and2[nd]petitioner came on record as legalrepresentatives of Appellant No.1 died.

4. I submit that we are not aware of the claimmade by my father in the appeal as he was lookingafter the litigation throughout. Recently in the lastweek of August, 2011, we met our Advocate atHyderabad and enquired about the stage of theappeal and then only we came to know that theclaim in the appeal is shown as Rs.50,000/- peracre. When we enquired our Advocate about thathe explained that the claim before the ReferenceCourt was Rs.25,000/- per acre as shown in theorder and accordingly the claim is made in theappeal. As the claim statement was not availablein the case bundle, our Advocate asked us to getclaim statement copy immediately to clarify thesituation. After searching we found a copy of theclaim statement in our house and submitted thesame to our Advocate on 05.09.2011. In the saidclaim statement the claim is mentioned asRs.2,50,000/- per acre. It appears that theReference Court had shown the same asRs.25,000/- by mistake.

5. It is submitted that I and 2[nd] petitionerinstructed our Advocate to enhance the claim toRs.2,50,000/- per acre by paying deficit court fee. Hence, the delay occurred in paying the deficitcourt fee, which is neither willful nor wanton. Insuch circumstances unless this Hon’ble Courtcondone the delay occurred in paying court fee the

13. Having heard both sides, this Court placingreliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Buta Singh v. Union of India[[1]], condoned the delaysubject to the condition of petitioners filing an applicationfor condoning the delay in preferring the appeal till thedate of payment of deficit court fee within two weeks fromthe date of that order, which was passed on 27-09-2011. In compliance of the said direction, the claimants filedLAAS MP No.2230 of 2011, requesting the Court tocondone the delay of 919 days in paying the deficit courtfee in the instant appeal. The above extracted paragraphsare repeated numbering them as paragraph Nos.5 and 6,respectively, except to the extent in paragraph No.9 in theaffidavit mentioning about passing of order, dated 30-09-2005, referred to in the above. Subsequently, theappellants filed additional material papers. The last itemin the additional material papers is the copy of their claimpetition filed in O.P. No.7312 of 1991 on the file ofSubordinate Judge’s Court, Nandikotkur and after it wastransferred to Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court atKurnool, it was re-numbered as O.P. No.299 of 1993.

14. Original record is called for from thereference Court, which consists the claim statement, dated 30-03-1992, submitted by the deceased claimant(appellant), with the reference Court.

15. The original claim statement is summonedalong with the records so as to compare with the copyof the claim statement filed by the claimants(appellants) as additional material papers, since, duringthe course of arguments, while perusing the additionalmaterial papers, we noticed alteration in the amountmentioned, the addition of a “0” (zero), in the figures“Rs.25,000/-“ mentioned at the relevant place in theclaim statement. We intend to elaborate the same as,in our view, it appears that the insertion of “0” in theamount sought to be fixed as the market value appearsto have been done during the pendency of the presentappeal in the original claim statement.

16. Reverting to the submissions made by bothsides, the learned counsel for the appellant contendsthat the reference Court somehow overlooked the factthat in the claim statement, the deceased claimantrequested for enhancement of compensation by fixingthe market value of the subject land at Rs.2,50,000/-and the reference Court somehow mentioned the claimof the deceased claimant in the original claim petition asRs.25,000/-. It is also his submission that Ex.X-1, which relates to a sale transaction of kallam land, anextent of Ac.0-03 cents was sold for a consideration ofRs.3,000/-, way back in the year 1960, by way ofregistered sale deed, executed by one Sivamma infavour of Sekhar Reddy. But, the reference Courtsomehow, did not appreciate the sale transactiontherein in proper perspective. It is also his submissionthat the evidence of RW.1 would reflect that for similarkallam lands, which were acquired, the II AdditionalSub-ordinate Court, Kurnool, in O.P. No.146 of 1981,awarded compensation at Rs.3,000/- per cent, whichland belongs to one G. Ranga Swami and the appealpreferred against the said decision was dismissed bythis Court in Appeal No.2160 of 1987 confirming thecompensation fixed by the reference Court. It is,therefore, his submission that the market value wasRs.2,500/- per cent on the date of notification and,therefore, sought to fix the market value at that rateand awarded compensation for the extent acquired.

17. The learned Government Pleader forAppeals submits that acquisition was in 1976 year in aremote village called Ghanapuram for Srisailam HydroElectric Project and though, it is kallam land, the LandAcquisition Officer, taking into consideration the relevantfactors, fixed the market value at Rs.2,000/- per acre and the claim now made is inflated and there is nomaterial on record through documentary proof that theland under acquisition would have fetched Rs.2,500/-per cent, and, therefore, sought to dismiss the appealby confirming the rate fixed by the reference Court.

18. The short question that arises for considerationin the instant appeal is ‘whether the claimants are entitledto enhanced compensation?’

POINT:

19. Incidentally, the claim statement filed by thedeceased claimant requires a thorough examination,more particularly, the amount mentioned in figures, since,as mentioned in the above by us, there has been materialalteration visible even to a naked eye.

20. Touching the evidence of RW.1, it is no doubttrue, he has exhibited Ex.X-1, certified copy of the saledeed, showing that Ac.0-03 cents of land was sold for a consideration ofRs.3,000/-, as referred to above. But, in our view, Ex.X-1cannot be relied on for the reasons that not only it relatesto year 1960, but, non-examination of either party theretois a vital circumstance since an opportunity ought to haveafforded to the Land Acquisition Officer to project as tounder what compelling circumstances that sale had taken place.

The reference Court has assigned reasons for notaccepting Ex.X-1 as exemplar, which were referred to inthe above, and we are convinced that the reasonsassigned by the reference Court in refusing to placereliance on Ex.X-1 are convincing and well appreciated. Therefore, the finding recorded thereon does not sufferfrom any perversity warranting interference by this Court.

21. Concerning other submission made by thelearned counsel for the claimants (appellants) that theevidence of RW.1 would show that the very samereference Court in O.P. No146 of 1981 grantedcompensation at Rs.3,000/- per cent for kallam land, in thesame village, belonging to one G. Ranga Swami and theappeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer in AppealNo.2650 of 1987 was dismissed confirming thecompensation fixed by the reference Court, the deceasedclaimant has not chosen to examine the said RangaSwami and also did not choose to file copy of the award inthe said O.P. and further he failed to file a copy of thejudgment and decree passed by this Court in the appeal2650 of 1987. In fact, a duty is cast on PW.2 to file thesaid documents when he is seeking enhancement ofcompensation. The very fact that none of thesedocuments were filed into this Court besides non-examination of G. Ranga Swami, claimant in O.P. No.141

of 1986, certainly, compel us to exclude that portion of hisevidence, disentitling him to claim the compensationbasing on some assertions in his evidence in his chief-examination. This apart even the answers given by him inhis cross-examination that he does not know the saidRanga Swami and that he does not know whether therewere sales three years preceding the notification are allsufficient enough to hold that nothing can be culled out insubstantiating the stand taken by the claimants in seekingenhancement of compensation.

22. RW.2 is one P. Laxmi Reddy, an attestor toEx.X-1. In his cross-examination, he admits that vendeeand vendor under Ex.X-1 are ‘dayadis’ and from 1960 i.e.,the date of sale under Ex.X-1, till the date of acquisition,there were no sales in their village. Certainly, theevidence of this witness could not improve the case of theclaimants in seeking enhancement of compensation,more particularly, he is just an attestor and not a party tothe document.

23. Reverting to the claim statement filed by thedeceased claimant, photostat copy of the claim statementis filed in additional material papers by the legalrepresentatives, who are claimants 2 and 3 herein, theoriginal claim statement filed by the deceased claimant;when examined would show in paragraph No.2, in the 8[th]line, the blank is filled in with ‘Rs.2,50,000/-’, it appears that originally, Rs.25,000/- were written with one and thesame pen in the same alignment. The last digit ‘0’ wasadded with a different ink pen giving a thick impressionand the slash (‘/’) is also written with the same pen withthick impression. Thus, it is crystal clear, the last digit ‘0’was inserted so as to show that the claim was made foraward of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre.

24. Likewise in the last paragraph, which is un-numbered, at the relevant place, the amount was alteredas Rs.2,50,000/-, which was done by insertion of ‘0’ afterthe digits ‘250’ and followed by originally written digits‘00’. Thus, there has been deliberate attempt to show thatthe deceased claimant sought Rs.2,50,000/- per acre byinserting ‘0’ at both the places in the claim statementwhich invariably, could have been done subsequent tothe death of the deceased claimant, since the amendmentwas sought only when the legal representatives of thedeceased claimant came on record. In this context itself,we would like to advert to the reasons assigned by thelegal representatives for seeking the amendment in theclaim made originally in the appeal himself by thedeceased claimant. The relevant paragraphs of theaffidavit, more particularly, paragraphs 3 and 4 wereextracted in the above. A perusal of the contents ofparagraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in LAAS MPNo.2071 of 2011 would show that the claimants 2 and 3deliberately woven the story to give colour of reality to the claim made by them at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre by makingmaterial alterations in the original claim statement filedbefore the reference Court, somehow, gaining access tothe original claim statement available in the record with thereference Court in O.P. No.299 of 1993. Such acts of theclaimants 2 and 3 are highly unwarranted and have to becondemned.

If the interested parties are left scot free without initiating necessary action, recurrence of such incidents cannot bearrested. Therefore, we are of the strong view, to directthe reference Court to take appropriate steps to initiatesuitable action on the persons responsible for thealterations made.

25. Hence, we direct the reference Court to takesteps to initiate action against the persons responsible forthe alterations, in accordance with law.

26. Again reverting to the claim of the claimants forenhancement of compensation, we are of the consideredview that in view of the material alteration made in theclaim statement, and in view of our discussion in theabove, it is not a deserving case to enhance thecompensation.

27. Even the amount mentioned in paragraph No.3of the letter addressed by the deceased claimant to theLand Acquisition Officer, which is undated, but show that it was received on 23-04-1986, was altered by insertion of‘0’ in the originally mentioned amounts ‘Rs.20,000/-’ afterthe digits ‘200’ and before the digits ‘00’,

making it to Rs.2,00,000/- as the claim, pursuant to whichthe reference Court under Section 18 was made to thereference Court. Thus, there has been material alterationeven in the above letter, which has been construed asprotest memo. Thus, there has been material alterationnot only in the claim statement, but also in the above letterwith varying amounts while seeking enhancement by thereference Court.

28. Therefore, we intend to confirm the award anddecree passed by the reference Court and to dismiss theappeal. The point is accordingly answered.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal isdismissed confirming the impugned order, with thedirections as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

30. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending inthe appeal stand disposed of.

_________________________

R. SUBHASH

REDDY, J

__________________________

December 31, 2014.

Mgr/pv

[1]. 1995 (5) SCC 283

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J