AS/1019/1999 of Jillellamudi Narasimha Rao Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and on 29 December 2009

J U D G M E N T:

Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed This Appeal under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation grantedby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru byorder and decree dated 15.10.1998 in O.P. No. 1 of 1987.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The land in an extent of Ac.3.34 cents in R.S. Nos.866, 867/2 and 868/1 situate at Eluru Town was acquiredby the Government for providing house sites to theScheduled Castes and Backward Classes, videnotification dated 25.04.1978, issued under Section 4(1)of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking intoaccount and consideration the sale transactions that tookplace in the vicinity of the land in question, passed anaward on 27.03.1985, fixing the market value atRs.10,000/- per acre and at Rs.9,450/- for fourteencoconut trees at the rate of Rs.675/- per tree andconsequently, possession of the land was taken on 04.-03.1982. The claimant protested the award andthereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer made a referenceunder Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court for proper determination of the market value of the land in question.

In the Court of the learned Principal Senior CivilJudge, Eluru, the claimant has adduced both oral anddocumentary evidence. He has examined P.Ws.1 to 5and filed Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Land AcquisitionOfficer, R.W.1 was examined.

The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, though,was of the view that the claimant has failed to prove thatthe compensation awarded by the Land AcquisitionOfficer for the land under acquisition is inadequate,thought it proper to enhance the same by 20%, keepingin view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in P.

Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer[[1]], andaccordingly, enhanced the same to Rs.12,000/- per acre.The award in respect of the other aspects wasconfirmed. Aggrieved by the inadequate enhancement,the appellant filed the present Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended thatthe learned Senior Civil Judge should have givencredence to Exs.A2 and A3 and then fixed the marketvalue. According to him, the land in question hasbuilding potentiality and hence, the learned Judge erredin making a proper assessment of its value.

Heard the learned Government Pleader forAppeals.

Admittedly, Exs.A1 to A3 are of the post-notification sale documents, whereas the land inquestion was acquired in the year 1978. Therefore, thesesale transactions are obviously of no help to the claimant. But, however, the subject land is situated inclose proximity of Eluru town and it fetches more valuethan what has been awarded by the reference Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant has drawnour attention to the ratio in the judgment rendered by theSupreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru v.

Jasti Rohini[[2]], wherein the market value of the landssituated in Eluru Municipality was fixed at the rate ofRs.65,000/- per acre. In that case, the notification underSection 4(1) of the Act was issued in the year 1983, andthe lands were acquired for the purpose of providinghouse sites and the Supreme Court estimated the landvalue at Rs.65,000/- per acre . In the instant case, thenotification was issued in the year 1978 and the landwas also situate in or around same locality and acquiredfor a similar purpose. Therefore, the principles behindfixation of market value at Rs.65,000/- per acre can betaken into consideration.

The learned counsel has also placed relianceupon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in P.Ram Reddy’s case (cited supra), wherein sevenguidelines were formulated for purposes of fixing themarket value based on the building potentiality, whichare to the following effect:

i)the situation of the acquired land vis-à-visthe city or the town or village which had beengrowing in size because of its commercial,industrial, educational, religious or any otherkind of importance or because of itsexplosive population;the city or the town or village which had beengrowing in size because of its commercial,industrial, educational, religious or any otherkind of importance or because of itsexplosive population;

ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings; be they residential,commercial or industrial, as the case maybe; iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put upon that land;on that land;

iv)absence of statutory impediments or the likefor using the acquired land for buildingpurposes;for using the acquired land for buildingpurposes;v)existence of highways, public roads, layoutsof building plots or developed residentialextensions in the vicinity or close proximityof building plots or developed residentialextensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centers, or the like inthe surrounding areas of the acquired landwhich may become available to theoccupiers of buildings, if built on the acquiredland; andthe surrounding areas of the acquired landwhich may become available to theoccupiers of buildings, if built on the acquiredland; andvii)lands around the acquired land or the acquiredland itself being in demand for buildingpurposes, to specify a few.land itself being in demand for buildingpurposes, to specify a few.

Therefore, following the principles contained in theabove-said judgments of the Supreme Court, we are ofthe opinion that the compensation be enhanced for thelands in question, but however, after providing fordeduction at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each for five years,because the notification in the present case is of the year1978 i.e. five years prior to the notification issued in thecase of Rohini’s case, wherein the Supreme Court fixedthe market value at Rs.65,000/- per acre. Since thepurpose of acquisition of the land is for providing housesites to the poorer sections of the society, one-third of themarket value has to be deducted for purposes of development of the site also. Therefore, after deductingone-third, we deem it appropriate to enhance thecompensation as against the amount of Rs.12,000/-awarded by the reference Court, thus fixing the marketvalue at Rs.27,000/- per acre. The order of the learnedPrincipal Senior Civil Judge in all other respects shallremain intact.

With the above-said modification, the Appeal isallowed. No costs.

---------------------------Ghulam Mohammed, J

---------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J

29[th] December 2009

ksld

[1]1995(2) ALT 15 (SC)[2]1995(1) ALT 37 (SC)