Allowed

The La Officer Cum Mro, v. P. Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC23 Oct 2013AS/1805/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Apex Court dismissed appeals against family courts' orders enhancing land acquisition compensation. The Court upheld the augmented amount of Rs.16 per square yard, rejecting the appellant's claim that it was excessive compared to the initial award of Rs.5,000 per acre. Evidence of local sales was accepted as decisive.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed, confirming the trial Court's enhanced compensation award of Rs.16 per sq.yard.

The La Officer Cum Mro, Vs P. Krishna Murthy — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

¶4

A.S.Nos.1618 & 1805 of 2002

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶6

(Judgment of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶7

% 23-10-2013

¶8

#The Land Acquisition Officer-cumMandal Revenue Officer, Gadwal ..Appellant Vs. $ Kandakam Siddi Ramappa (Died) Per LRs ..Respondents !Counsel for the appellant : G.P. for Appeals ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S. Venkateswar Reddy < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

¶12

A.S.Nos.1618 & 1805 of 2002

¶13

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶14

These two appeals are filed against the judgments and decrees in O.P.Nos.139 and 141 of 1986, dated 27^th and 28^th February, 2002, respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. The facts that gave rise to the filing of both the appeals are similar. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

¶15

The Government intended to provide house sites to the weaker sections in Gadwal town. Initially, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) dated 02-03-1985 was issued, proposing to acquire Ac.3.85 cents of land in Sy.No.1013 of Gadwal Revenue Village, owned by the respondents in A.S.No.1618 of 2002. Within two month thereafter, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 24-04-1985, covering Ac.4.55 cents of land in Sy.No.937 of the same village, owned by the respondents, in A.S.No.1805 of 2002. While in O.P.No.139 of 1986, the award was passed on 17-02-1986, fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/per acre, in O.P.No.141 of 1986, the award was passed

¶16

on 10-01-1986, fixing the same market value. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents in both the appeals sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. References were taken up by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Gadwal, as O.P.Nos.139 and 141 of 1986. Through separate orders dated 27^th and 28^th of February, 2002, respectively, the trial Court

¶17

enhanced the compensation to Rs.16/- per sq.yard. Hence, these two appeals.

¶18

Learned Government Pleader for Appeals submits that the respondents relied upon the judgment and decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, whereunder the compensation was enhanced by the trial Court to Rs.20/- per sq.yard, and the fact that the said compensation was reduced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to Rs.20,000/- per acre, ought to have been taken into account by the trial Court. He contends that once the respondents pleaded that their cases are akin to those, covered by the decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, filed as Ex.A-1 in O.P.No.139 of 1986, the trial Court ought not to have taken into account, any other evidence, including the sale deed, Ex.A-2, dated 04-12-1984. He submits that solely on the basis that in Ex.A-2 an extent of 480 sq.yards of land was sold, at the rate of Rs.100/per sq.yard, the compensation in the instant case, was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to nearly Rs.77,000/- per acre.

¶19

Sri S. Venkateswar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though it is a fact that the decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, marked as Ex.A-1, was modified, and the compensation in respect of a land, covered by that O.P., was reduced to Rs.20,000/-, the fact remains that in the immediate neighbourhood, a plot of Rs.480 sq.yards was sold, one year before the acquisition, at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.yard. Learned counsel contends that the acquisition itself was for providing house sites in an area abutting the town, which is a Municipality. Learned counsel further submits that the acquired land is part of Gadwal Revenue Village, which is a town, that recorded development long back.

¶20

For all practical purposes, the lands covered by both the appeals were for the same purpose and identical in all respects, though separate notifications were issued and separate awards were passed. The trial Court framed the following points in both the OPs.

¶21

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the LAO., in the award Ex.B-1? If so, to what extent?

¶22

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the benefits provided under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68/84?

¶23

3. Whether the claimants are entitled at the rate of square yard or acres basis?

¶24

4. Whether the claimants are entitled for costs incurred in the proceedings?

¶25

In O.P No.139 of 1986, on behalf of the respondents, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the appellants herein, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were filed. Similarly, in O.P No.141 of 1996, on behalf of the respondents, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were filed, and on behalf of the appellants, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were filed. Except that there is a minor variation as to the oral and documentary evidence, the purport thereof is common. In both the OPs, heavy reliance was placed upon the registration extract of a sale deed, dated 04-12-1984, which was marked as Exs.A-2 and A-3, respectively.

¶26

In view of the extensive submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, as to,

¶27

whether the enhancement of compensation from

¶28

Rs.5,000/- per acre to Rs.16/- per sq.yard (i.e. Rs.77,440/- per acre), can be sustained in law.

¶29

If one looks at the figures, that depicted the compensation, which is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the one hand, and the one, enhanced by the trial Court, on the other; a bit of surprise would emerge at the first blush. However, the undisputed facts would clearly indicate that deviation if at all has taken place at the stage of determination of the market value, by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶30

Gadwal is a Municipality for the past several decades. Added to that, it is the headquarter of a famous Samsthanam and developed in many respects. The purpose for which the land was acquired was to provide house sites to the poor in Gadwal town. It is important to note that the lands, that were acquired; were part of Gadwal Revenue Village. Normally, the house sites are provided for the urban poor by acquiring the lands in the neighbouring Villages. In the instant case, the acquisition is, of the land of Gadwal Revenue Village itself. Therefore, the fixation of the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre, in the year 1986, was just unimaginable, if not shocking.

¶31

Instances are not lacking, where the Land Acquisition Officers resort to such illegalities or abnormalities for obvious reasons. On account of such steps, not only the owners of the land are made to go around the Courts, but also the public exchequer is burdened, since the Government would be required to pay

¶32

not only the enhanced market value, but also the interest on solatium thereon for several years, if not decades. A bit of reasonableness on the part of the authorities of the Government would have avoided such a situation.

¶33

It is no doubt true that, in one of the OPs, reliance was placed upon the order and decree in O.P.No.2218 of 1984, in which the compensation for the land acquired in Gadwal Revenue Village was fixed at Rs.20/- per sq.yard, and in S.L.P., arising out of it,

¶34

the compensation was reduced to Rs.20,000/- per acre. The said document can certainly be eschewed from consideration. However, a sale deed dated 04-12-1984 is filed as Ex.A-2, in O.P.No.139 of 1986, and as Ex.A-3 in O.P.No.141 of 1986. It is

¶35

in respect of a plot of 480 sq.yards, in the same town. The consideration reflected therein is Rs.100/- per sq.yard. The persons connected with the document were examined and its comparability with the acquired land was established. The sale has taken place six months earlier to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Since the transaction took place in respect of a plot in town, it cannot be said to be the one, arranged in anticipation of any acquisition. Day in and day out, such transactions too take place in the town.

¶36

Obviously because the extent acquired was in acres and large, the same rate at which, the land covered by the sale deed dated 04-121984 was sold; cannot be applied. The trial Court took into account, the various aspects, such as the requirement to lay road and leave open spaces, and has just awarded 16% of the consideration, reflected under that sale deed as against the normal practice of deducting 30 to 40% in such cases. By any standard, the fixation of market value at Rs.16/- per sq.yard at a time when in the neighbourhood, a plot of land was sold at Rs.100/- per sq.yard, cannot be said to be on the higher side. We are of the view that the trial Court determined the market value objectively and after taking into account, the voluminous oral and documentary evidence, before it.

¶37

The appellants herein made effort before the trial Court by filing Exs.B-1 to B-7, which are sale deeds, and Exs.B-8 to B-11, copies of pahanies, etc. Those documents were of no use whatever; and the trial Court has correctly discarded them.

¶38

We accordingly dismiss both the appeals. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the appeals shall also stand disposed of.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

__________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶41

__________________________ M.S.K. JAISWAL, J Dt. 23-10-2013 KO

The La Officer Cum Mro, v. P. Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The La Officer Cum Mro, v. P. Krishna Murthy

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

Boga Limbadri Vs Smt. Roopa D/o. Kotha Kamraiah

B. Vikram Kumar Vs Smt. B. Hemalatha , Rukmini

Smt. Anjamma , Anajali Devi, Vs K. Sudershan Reddy

Spl Dy Collectorandlao. La. Port Dev. Kaki Vs Manga Apparao

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Vs Kandakam Siddi Ramappa (Died) L.Rs.

The Land Acquisition Officer and Vs Madarapu Venkata Ramana