The Appellate Court dismissed the Special Deputy Collector's appeal and the claimant's cross objections against the reference Court's fixation of market value at Rs.1,50,000 per acre based on relevant sale evidence and potential for use as a house site.
Appeal and Cross Objections dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
A.S.No.1798 of 1998 and Cross Objections (SR) No.26618 of 1999
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy)
Questioning the enhancement of compensation made by the Senior Civil Judge, Razole in O.P.No.25 of 1994, dated 11.02.1998, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (O.N.G.C) Rajahmundry filed the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereas seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimant preferred the Cross Objections.
An extent of Acs.3.47 cents of land comprised in various survey numbers of Nagullanka Village, Hamlet of Manepalli belonging to the claimant was acquired for producing Oil/Gas well known as Manepalli – I at Manepalli – I drill site by O.N.G.C., by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and publishing the same in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 16.05.1992, followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 02.07.1992. Possession of the land was taken on 22.09.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer, after gathering
19 sale transactions that took place during the three years preceding to the notification, passed Award No.7 of 1993, dated 20.02.1993, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant, who received the compensation under protest, sought to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of market value. On such reference being made, the claimant appeared before the reference Court and filed a claim statement claiming the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,75,000/- per acre.
In order to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of draft notification, on behalf of the claimant, her husband was examined as P.W.1 and one more witness was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A.1registered sale deed, dated 16.11.1991, executed by the claimant in favour of one G.V.C.Satyanarayanamurthy was marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, the Senior Assistant in the office of Special Deputy Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1-copy of award and Ex.B.2-copy of combined sketch were marked.
The reference Court, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.
Sri N.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant/cross objector contended that the acquired lands are having potentiality to be used as house sites and that Ex.A.1-sale deed, dated 16.11.1991, was executed by the claimant in respect of Acs.0.25 cents of land for Rs.30,000/-, which works out to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, and therefore, the claimant is entitled to further enhancement of compensation.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to support the claim of the claimant for further enhancement, and that the reference Court erred in relying upon the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the same cannot be treated as evidence.
In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is what is the true market value for which the claimant is entitled to?
It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the claimant for claiming higher compensation in respect of the acquired land.
P.W.1, who is the husband of the claimant, deposed that the acquired land is located in Chakalipalem hamlet of Nagullanka Panchayat; that it is located adjacent to the main road running from Jaggannapeta to Gannavaram and it is a dry land; that they used to raise sugar cane in the acquired land; that prior to the acquisition the acquired land was taken on lease by O.N.G.C by paying rentals on sugarcane crop basis; that there was a sugar factory at a distance of about two furlongs from the acquired land, but the same was subsequently converted as rice mill; that there are houses near the acquired land at a distance of 5 or 6 yards numbering 10 to 15 and hence the land in question is also useful for house sites; that it has got irrigation facilities; that the cost of land, wherein sugarcane crop used to be raised, and where the acquired land is located was Rs.3,00,000/per acre by the date of acquisition, whereas the land of paddy field was Rs.2,00,000/- per acre; that the cost of the land, which was used for house sites by the date of acquisition was Rs.5,00,000/- per acre; and that his wife sold Acs.0.25 cents of land to P.W.2 at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre prior to the acquisition and the said land is adjacent to the acquired land intervened by one small canal. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to P.W.1 that the sale under Ex.A.1 is brought up to claim higher compensation. In the re-examination, P.W.1 stated that to avoid the payment of stamp duty, less value was shown with respect to the said land; that the acquired land is recognized as dry land in the records; and that during the local enquiry they were informed by the enquiry officer that the cost of the land per acre was ranging from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-.
P.W.2, who is the purchaser of the land under Ex.A.1, supported the evidence of P.W.1 that the cost of one acre of paddy field by the date of acquisition in the area, where the land in question is located was from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; and that he got the land under
Ex.A.1 at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. In the cross-examination, he stated that he purchased the property under Ex.A.1 for construction of shops in future. There is no suggestion to this witness also that Ex.A.1 sale was brought up by him, since he being a friend of P.W.1. In the absence of the same, Ex.A.1 can be taken as comparable sale for fixation of the market value of the acquired land.
Since the acquired land is having the potentiality to be converted into house site, the claimant is entitled to 10% escalation on the value mentioned under Ex.A.1, which works out to Rs.1,32,000/per acre. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the fixation of the market value by the reference Court @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre is not unreasonable. Therefore, we confirm the fixation of the market value of the acquired land
by the reference Court @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.
In the result, the appeal and Cross Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A. GOPAL REDDY, J
__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J
Date: 13.10.2009 va
2 issues framed by the court
What is the true market value for which the claimant is entitled in the context of the enhancement of compensation appeal?
Whether the reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (O.N.G.C) Rajahmundry
A.GOPAL REDDY
B.CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
