Allowed

The La Officer and Spl. Dy. Collector, v. K. Ram Reddy

Telangana HC30 Dec 2010AS/1029/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the State's appeals and allowed cross-objections, modifying land acquisition awards. The Court enhanced compensation to Rs.33,000 for wet lands and Rs.31,000 for dry lands per acre, citing rates from a related prior judgment. It also mandated interest on enhanced amounts from the notification date.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.33,000 per acre for wet lands and Rs.31,000 per acre for dry lands; interest awarded on enhanced compensation, solatium, and additional amount from the date of notification

The La Officer and Spl. Dy. Collector, Vs K. Ram Reddy — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

¶4

and

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶6

Appeal Suit Nos. 215, 434 and 1029 of 2002 and cross objections in all the Appeal Suits

¶7

A.S. No.215 of 2002:

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

Smt. Nagalaxmamma .. Respondent Cross objections in A.S. No.215 of 2002: Between:

¶12

Smt. Nagalaxmamma .. Cross objector

¶13

And

¶14

The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Respondent A.S. No.434 of 2002:

¶15

Between:

¶16

The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Appellant

¶17

And J. Beesanna (died) and others .. Respondents Cross objections in A.S. No.434 of 2002: Between: Nalivala Beesanna .. Cross objector And The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Respondent A.S. No.1029 of 2002: Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Appellant And K. Ram Reddy .. Respondent Cross objections in A.S. No.1029 of 2002: Between: K. Ram Reddy .. Cross objector And The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit, PJP Gadwal .. Respondent

¶18

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per G. Bhavani Prasad, J)

¶19

The awards in Land Acquisition O.P. Nos.243 of 1995, 252 of 1995 and 240 of 1995 in pursuance of the common order, dated 09-01-2001 of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy are the subject matter of A.S. Nos.215 of 2002, 434 of 2002 and 1029 of 2002 respectively. While the appeals are by the State, the crossobjections are preferred in all the three matters by the claimants.

¶20

The factual background for the appeals and the crossobjections is that for the purpose of left main canal of Priyadarshini Jurala Project, the State acquired lands at Shakapur and draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was published on 21-01-1992. The lands were divided into two categories by the Land Acquisition Officer after due enquiry and he passed award dated 01-06-1992 fixing the compensation at Rs.15,000/and Rs.12,000/per acre respectively for categories I and II lands. The claimants protested, on which references were made to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants claimed Rs.35,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet lands before the reference Court and relied on the potentiality, fertility and location of the lands in question for claiming such higher compensation. The claimants also claimed the sales statistics available to be genuine, the highest of which should have been straight away adopted and the claimants also contended that they were raising two crops in an year in the lands earning Rs.10,000/- per acre from dry lands and Rs.15,000/- per acre from wet lands. The Referring Officer denied the claims and supported the award.

¶21

While so, after clubbing these three cases and O.P. No.244 of 1995 together, the reference Court recorded the evidence of

¶22

P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.B.1 during enquiry.

¶23

It rendered the common order noting that while the ownership of the acquired lands was not in dispute, 37 sales were referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B.1 award. The reference Court also noted that the lands under well-irrigation were classified as category I and the lands without that facility were classified as category II by the Land Acquisition Officer, who could not find any sale deeds in the three preceding years in respect of category I lands, while for category 2 lands, he had some statistics. The reference Court referred to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the nature of the lands, the crops raised, the income claimed and the civic amenities available in the village with 1000 houses. It also referred to the evidence of the purchaser under Ex.A.1 document as P.W.3 and the seller under Ex.A.2 document as P.W.5 apart from the evidence of the decree-holder in O.P. No.306 of 1995 and batch as P.W.4. The witnesses were noted to have stated about the potentiality of the acquired lands and the Land Acquisition Officer himself was noted to have referred to the strategic location of the village and the amenities available in the village. The reference Court also noted that the land at a distance of half kilo metre was sold at a price of Rs.26,000/- per acre under Ex.A.2. The evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.A.2 transaction within three years prior to the notification of Section 4(1) of the Act were observed to have been not shown to be not bona fide and it was further noted that the discarded sales were attempted to be discredited due to the location of the lands or the dates of the transactions. However, the reference Court found no justification for the Land Acquisition Officer not adopting the value of the sale under Ex.A.2 when it was admitted to be a comparable sale by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court also found that the

¶24

sale at item 36 of Ex.B.1 award was in respect of a land very close to the land acquired and the village and should have been relied on. The reference Court also discussed the object and purpose of the law of land acquisition and concluded that the value of Rs.26,000/- per acre under Ex.A.2 can be safely taken as the basis for determining the market value of the land. After giving the benefit of 10% escalation, the value was fixed at Rs.31,200/- per acre in respect of the lands cultivated with the help of wells and for the dry lands, the value was fixed at Rs.24,000/- per acre. The reference Court held the claimants to be entitled to the additional amount of 12% per annum from the date of possession till the date of award, solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for one year and at 15% per annum thereafter till the date of payment on the original compensation. The reference Court did not grant interest on solatium and additional amount.

¶25

The State challenged the awards in pursuance of the common order contending that the escalation granted by the reference Court based on Ex.A.2 is unsustainable, as the land under Ex.A.2 is not in immediate proximity. The Court also failed to note that the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the sale under Ex.A.2 as a motivated sale.

¶26

In the cross-objections of the respective claimants in the three appeals, it was identically claimed that the Court itself granted Rs.34,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.40,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands in O.P. No.241 of 1995 and batch under judgment, dated 20-04-2000, while lesser compensation was granted for similar lands herein. The lands were acquired under common award based on common evidence and common documents and hence, the claimants desired compensation at Rs.34,000/- and Rs.40,000/- per acre respectively.

¶27

Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors.

¶28

The common judgment in A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch, dated 14-09-2006 is relied on by the respondents/cross-objectors.

¶29

The point for consideration is what was the probable prevailing market value of the lands acquired by the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and accordingly whether the value fixed by the reference Court has to be enhanced or reduced.

¶30

Point:

¶31

In A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court decided by its common judgment on merits on 14-09-2006 that compensation should be fixed at Rs.33,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.31,000/- per acre for dry lands in respect of the lands acquired under O.P. No.242 of 1995 and batch for the purpose of excavation of the left main canal of Priyadarshini Jurala Project. The notification therein under Section 4(1) of the Act was on 21-10-1992, while the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act herein was on

¶32

21-01-1992, though the acquisition was for the same purpose. In respect of Ac.47-08 guntas acquired in that batch of cases, Ac.2108 guntas were the subject of the appeals, for which the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands. The Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in a common order under Section 18 references, dated 20-04-2000 enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.34,000/- respectively per acre on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 primarily relying on Ex.A.1 sale deed. In the common judgment, the Division Bench of this Court noted that Ex.A.1 sale deed, dated 21-04-1990 was for a sale price

¶33

of Rs.26,000/- per acre and if 20% escalation was given for two years, the compensation payable would be Rs.31,000/- for dry lands and Rs.33,000/- for wet lands per acre. The Division Bench further noted that higher compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre granted in some other cases was in respect of the lands in far away villages, though for the very same purpose and hence, took into account only the value of the lands in that village. Relying on Ex.A.1 itself, the compensation was reduced to Rs.33,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.31,000/- per care for dry lands.

¶34

The lands covered by A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch and the lands covered by the present appeals are all located in Shakapur village and were notified for acquisition in 1992 itself, though appearing to be separated by 9 months in between. There would not have been any significant or substantial variation in the prices of the agricultural lands in rural areas within a period of 10 months and on the basis of Ex.A.1 transaction relied on in that batch of cases, which was just 3 months after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the present case, the same valuation adopted by the Division Bench can be safely adopted in the present case also.

¶35

The reference Court in the impugned common order analysed the rival contentions and the evidence very carefully and it is seen from the said order that R.W.1, who marked Ex.B.1 award, did not appear to have thrown any further light on the questions in controversy practically leaving the evidence for the claimants uncontroverted and unchallenged. The acquired lands having source of irrigation, is not in dispute and the lands being under cultivation by the time of acquisition, is also not denied. While sales statistics were stated to be unavailable in respect of category I lands, the award itself was referred to by the reference Court as referring to the strategic location of the village and all the

¶36

basic civic amenities being available in the village like schools, public call office, electricity, post office, etc. P.W.4 is the witness who obtained decree in O.P. No.306 of 1995 and batch in which compensation was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.45,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands and his crossexamination did not bring out any significant variance in the features of both the lands so as to treat the acquired lands as totally inferior in potentiality or fertility. The transactions spoken to by P.W.3 about Ex.A.1 and P.W.5 about Ex.A.2 were not doubted by the reference Court and though the Land Acquisition Officer was claimed to have considered Ex.A.2 to be undependable, the reference Court had given cogent reasons as to why it can be acted upon, replication of which in this judgment is not necessary. If so, there was sufficient material for justifying the conclusion of the reference Court that Ex.A.2 sale can be depended upon together with the required escalation of 10% per annum. However, the reference Court reduced the value assessed by it by Rs.1,200/- per acre for no explicable reasons and the value fixed by the Division Bench in the other batch of appeals more or less tallies with the assessment made by the reference Court herein. As the judgment in A.S. No.3449 of 2000 and batch had become final, it will be a safe and sure guide to be adopted for arriving at the probable market value of the lands in the present cases also. Therefore, the value fixed by the reference Court can be marginally enhanced adopting the rates fixed by the Division Bench in other batch of appeals.

¶37

In so far as the consequential statutory benefits are concerned, while the additional amount and solatium would be available on the enhanced compensation, the confinement of payment of interest to original compensation only but not on solatium and additional amount, is not in tune with the statutory

¶38

provisions and interest has to be awarded on the enhanced compensation, solatium and additional amount also from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not from the date of taking possession, possession being anterior to the notification. So, the impugned awards have to be modified to that extent in favour of the claimants, while the challenge by the State should fail.

¶39

In the result, A.S. Nos.215 of 2002, 434 of 2002 and 1029 of 2002 are dismissed without costs and the cross-objections therein respectively are allowed to the extent of modifying the respective awards by enhancing the compensation payable to Rs.33,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.31,000/- per acre for dry lands along with additional amount of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the award, solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for one year and at 15% per annum thereafter till payment on the enhanced compensation, solatium and additional amount. The parties shall bear their own costs.

¶40

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶41

K.G. SHANKAR, J

¶42

Date: 30-12-2010 Svv

The La Officer and Spl. Dy. Collector, v. K. Ram Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The La Officer and Spl. Dy. Collector, v. K. Ram Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.D.C and Lao Peddapuram Vs a.Nukayya and Others

Saladi Venkataramana Vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-

Manemma House Hold Duties Medak. Vs Vithal Reddy. Hindui Medak DISTAND18 Ors.

Lao and Spl Dy Collector Yrp Peddapuram Vs K.Narayana Murthy

K.Basavapurnamma Vs Spl.Dy.Collector Lao Tenali

L.a.Oandspl.Dy.Col Yrp Kpeddapuram Vs v.Narayana Murthy