Allowed

Krishnakumar Reddy and Anothe v. Lao and R.D.Os Narayanpet

Telangana HC14 Oct 2009AS/1985/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Court enhanced compensation awarded for land acquired by APSRTC. It held that a sale deed executed post-notification was not a bona fide transaction and fixed market value at Rs. 5 per sq. yd. based on subsequent bona fide sales, allowing 30% solatium and interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced market value fixed at Rs. 5 per sq. yd.; claimants entitled to solatium at 30% p.a. and interest at 15% p.a.

Krishnakumar Reddy and Anothe Vs Lao and R.D.Os Narayanpet — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶3

A.S.Nos.1985 & 2041 of 1998

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy)

¶5

Since these two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, arise out of the common order dated 28.09.1994 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal in O.P.Nos.2130 and 2129 of 1994 which arose out of the Award No.F/6793/77, dated 26.02.1981, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The Executive Engineer, H2, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Kachiguda, Hyderabad sent requisition in Form-I and II along with sketch plans through his letter No.EEH2/2/356(ii)/77-CED, dated 30.11.1977 for acquiring the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 in S.Nos.546, 577 and 578 within the limits of Devarkadra village of Atmakur Taluk for construction of bus-station of APSRTC. On making such a requisition, draft notification and draft declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were approved in G.O.Rt.No.330 (TR &B) T.R.IV. Dept., dated 26.03.1979 respectively, and published in the A.P. Gazette on 2.08.1979 followed by errata to draft notification and draft declaration published in the A.P. Gazette 17.01.1980 acquiring an extent of Ac.1.33 of land in S.No.546/EE covered by O.P.No.1230 of 1984 and an extent of 1.01 guntas in S.No.546/E covered by O.P.No.1229 of 1984, apart from 5 cents of land in S.No.577 and 10 cents of land in S.No.578, which are not the subject matter of the present O.Ps.

¶6

The Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing notices under Sections 9(1) and 10, and Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act on the persons

¶7

interested, fixed the date for conducting award enquiry on 22.04.1980. After obtaining necessary sale statistics of three years preceding to the notification from the Sub-Registrar’s Officer, he passed award No.F/6793/77, dated 26.02.1981 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1500/- per acre as against the claim of the claimants at Rs.50,000/- per acre.

¶8

The claimants having received the compensation under protest, made applications for referring the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of compensation. On reference being made, the same was received in O.P.No.2130 of 1984 covering Ac.1.33 guntas and O.P.No.2129 of 1984 covering Ac.1.01 guntas. The claimants have appeared before the civil Court and filed their respective claim statements claiming compensation of Rs.85/- per sq. yd. together with additional benefits and also claimed Rs.20,000/towards costs of basement.

¶9

Since both the references arise out of the common award, O.P.No.2129 of 1984 was clubbed with O.P.No.2130 of 1984 and common evidence was recorded in O.P.No.2130 of 1984.

¶10

In order to prove the market value, the claimant in O.P.No.2130 of 1984 was examined as PW.2 and he also examined two more witnesses as PWs.1 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.14. On behalf of the referring officer, the Land Acquisition Officer himself was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.B.1-Award copy.

¶11

The reference Court discarded the sale deeds under Ex.A.2, A.4 and A.5, as none connected with the said documents were examined. That apart, PW.1 was examined to prove the sale under Ex.A.1registration extract of sale deed dated 28.12.1979, which is subsequent to the issuance of draft notification, but the same was also discarded by the lower Court. Then Ex.A.3 was executed by PW.2, pursuant to the original agreement of sale under Ex.A.6 dated 16.08.1977, in respect of one Guddeti Chandraiah whereunder 100 sq. yds were sold @ Rs.15/-

¶12

per sq. yd. In pursuance of the agreement of sale under Ex.A.6 dated 16.08.1977, the same was also not taken into consideration stating that as only 100 sq. yds of land was sold, the same cannot be a comparable sale for fixation of market value in respect of Ac.2.34 guntas of land, and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre and after deducting 1/4 towards developmental charges, Rs.15,000/- per acre was arrived as the compensation for the acquired land. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the present appeals have been filed.

¶13

Sri S. Venkateswar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower Court is not justified in discarding Ex.A.3-sale deed, which is prior to issuance of notification, and pursuant to the original agreement of sale dated 16.08.1977 where the land was sold @ Rs.15/- per sq. yd. and the same can be taken as the basis for fixation of market value after giving deduction for developmental charges. He further contended that the lower Court is also not justified in discarding Exs.A.2, A.4 and A.5, only on the ground that none connected with the said documents have been examined. In view of insertion of Section 51A to the Act, the said sale deeds, though subsequent to the notification, can be taken into consideration to know the rise in prices.

¶14

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation contended that the sale deeds under Exs.A.1 and A.3 are subsequent to the issuance of notification. Since Ex.A.3-sale deed, where 100 sq. yds of land was sold @ Rs.15/- per sq. yd., was executed by the claimants knowing about the acquisition proposals, the same cannot be taken as comparable sale for fixation of market value.

¶15

In view of the rival submissions, the only point that arises for consideration is what is the true market value, for which the claimants are entitled to.

¶16

Admittedly, the requisition to acquire the said land was made by the Executive Engineer of APSRTC on 30.11.1977 and draft notification

¶17

and declaration were approved by the Government on 26.03.1979. Whereas the sale deed under Ex.A.3 was executed on 15.02.1978 i.e., pursuant to the agreement of sale, dated 16.08.1977, therefore, this Court has to see whether the sale under Ex.A.3 is a genuine sale or not?

¶18

PW.2, who is the vendor of the document under Ex.A.3, deposed that he agreed to sell an extent of 100 sq. yds in S.No.546/E @ Rs.15/per sq. yd. under Ex.A.6-agreement of sale dated 16.08.1977 and received a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance, and on payment of the balance amount, the sale deed was executed on 15.02.1978. The purchaser of the sale deed under Ex.A.3 has not been examined.

¶19

PW.1 had purchased an extent of 350 sq. yds of land, which is situated at a distance of 200 to 400 sq. yds from the acquired land, @ Rs.10/- per sq. yd., from one Smt. Pushpa Bhai and Smt. Shyamalamma under Ex.A.1-sale deed dated 28.09.1979, which is nearly three months after the draft notification.

¶20

PW.3, was examined to prove that he prepared the estimate of basements, on 9.09.1990 under Ex.A.13 together with the sketch under Ex.A.14, dated 9.09.1990. PW.2 deposed that he laid foundation for construction of shops after obtaining permission from the Panchayat under Exs.A.7 to A.9. The Tahasildar also sent a report under Ex.A.10 dated 19.08.1986 with regard to existence of basement and compensation payable to the same. Under Ex.A.2-registration extract of sale deed dated 7.03.1980 one Smt. Anjanamma purchased an extent of 640 sq. yds. of vacant site from one Valuiddin @ Rs.10/- per sq. yd., i.e., one year six months after the notification, which clearly goes to show that even after the notification the property was sold @ Rs.10/- per sq. yd. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Ex.A.3-sale deed was brought up by the claimant to boost up the market value of the acquired land. Therefore, the same cannot be taken as the comparable sale for fixation of market value. If the same is eschewed

¶21

from the evidence, there is no other evidence to prove that the market value prevalent as on the date of notification is at Rs.10/- per sq. yd. But only after the notification is issued the lands adjacent were sold at Rs.10/- per sq. yd.

¶22

Further, it is evident from the evidence adduced by the claimants that the claimants obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat on 29.12.1977 under Exs.A.7 to A.9. No contra evidence has been let in by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that permission was obtained only for the purpose of boosting up the market value on coming to know the acquisition, since the land has the potentiality for construction of shopping complex and it was abutting to the main road. The fact that the approval was required by the requisitioning department, as the lands are abutting to the highway, also would show that the lands have the potentiality to use as commercial complex.

¶23

Keeping in view the transactions under Exs.A.1 and A.2-sale deeds where the land was sold @ Rs.10/- per sq. yd, and after giving due deduction, we take the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7/per sq. yd., prevalent as on the date of issuance of notification, and after deducting Rs.2/- towards developmental charges, we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5/- per sq. yd. We accordingly, fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.24,200/- per acre. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. Since the award is prior to 29.04.1982, on which date the bill for amendment of the Land Acquisition Act was introduced, the claimants are not entitled to additional market value, but they are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% p.a., and interest at 9% p.a., on the enhanced compensation for a period of one year from the date of taking possession i.e., 26.03.1981 and thereafter @ 15% p.a., on the enhanced compensation including solatium

¶24

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as

¶25

to costs.

¶26

___________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J.)

¶27

___________________ (B. Chandra Kumar, J.) 14^th October, 2009 Js.

Krishnakumar Reddy and Anothe v. Lao and R.D.Os Narayanpet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar Reddy and Anothe v. Lao and R.D.Os Narayanpet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The La officer and Spl. Dy. Collector (La) Unit, Vs B. ram reddy

The Spl. Dy. Collector (La) Vs Sudhakar

G.Nanne Sab Vs L.A.O Spl.Dy.Col Ssp Alampur Mnagarandan

Lao Mro Pitlam Vs Narasing Rao

M/s. Dharmaja Real Estates Pvt. Limited Vs G. Hanumantha Rao

P.G.Raji Reddy and 3 Others Vs P.G.Bhupathi Reddy and 9 Others