Allowed

Kommalapati Buddamma v. The Land AcquisitionOfficer and

Telangana HC3 Jan 2013AS/731/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed appeals against orders dismissing Land Acquisition Opinions. It held that the trial court erred in treating the 1983 notification as lapsed due to Section 11-A, ignoring a fresh 1998 notification. The Court enhanced compensation to Rs.25,000 per acre, noting the trial court wrongly rejected evidence of sale transactions.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; market value enhanced to Rs.25,000 per acre; benefits of solatium and additional market value from 22.01.1998.

Kommalapati Buddamma Vs The Land AcquisitionOfficer and — 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.535, 558, 731 and 664 of 2002

¶5

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

¶6

In this batch of appeals viz., A.S.Nos.535, 558, 731 and 664 of 2002, the orders passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla on different dates in L.A.O.P.Nos.76, 77, 79 and 80 of 1999 respectively are challenged.

¶7

For the sake of convenience, the L.A.O.Ps. are referred to as 1^st 2^nd , 3^rd , and 4^th in the same order.

¶8

The common feature that warrants the disposal of the appeals together is that all the L.A.O.Ps. arose out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) in relation to the lands that were acquired for the purpose of the improvement of a drain canal.

¶9

At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the trial Court in the four L.A.O.Ps. would make one to discern as to what a Court should not do while dealing with the references made under Section 18 of the Act. The unwarranted negative attitude exhibited by the trial Court has resulted in denial of just and reasonable compensation to the poor farmers, for the past quarter of a century.

¶10

‘Ogeru Vagu’ drain passes through Annavaram, Uppalapadu and other Villages of Pedanandipadu Mandal of Guntur District. The Government intended to take up the works for the improvement thereof. Obviously because the works were sought to be assigned bit wise, as many as four notifications were issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, covering different extents of land. While three of them were published on 06.06.1983, the fourth, which is the subject matter of A.S.No.664 of 2002, was published on 08.07.1983.

¶11

The notifications covered fairly large extents of land. It appears that disputes between the department and the land owners were existing for quite a long time. Four revised notifications were published on 22.01.1998 substantially reducing the extents, proposed to be acquired. Ultimately, the possession of the land is said to have been taken on 01.09.1993.

¶12

The Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein, passed four separate awards on 28.02.1998, fixing the market value for the land at the rate of Rs.6,700/- (one L.A.O.P.), Rs.8,000/- ( one L.A.O.P.) and Rs.8,500/- (two L.A.O.Ps.). Not satisfied with the amounts awarded by the respondent, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. References were made and accordingly, four L.A.O.Ps. came to be taken up by the trial Court. Through separate orders, dated 06.07.2000, 16.01.2001, 11.10.2000 and 16.08.2000 respectively, the trial Court dismissed all the four L.A.O.Ps. Hence, these four appeals.

¶13

Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial Court has virtually turned a blind eye to the undisputed oral and documentary evidence on record and dismissed the L.A.O.Ps. by citing totally untenable reasons. He contends that

¶14

when the notifications were of the same date and the acquisition was of the same area, the trial Court ought to have conducted a common trial, so that a comprehensive view can be taken and instead, the L.A.O.Ps. were taken up separately. Learned counsel submits that in the 1^st L.A.O.P., Ex.A1 was filed, according to which, the market value for the land way back in the year 1982 was about Rs.27,000/per acre and it was discarded simply by observing that a solitary transaction cannot be acted upon. He points out that in the 2^nd L.A.O.P., though Ex.B1, the award itself, made a mention of two transactions, they were not taken into account observing that the persons connected therewith were not examined, ignoring Section 51A of the Act.

¶15

Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Judge repeated the performance in respect of the 3^rd L.A.O.P., where two independent sale deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A2 were filed, by citing totally untenable reasons. It is further pleaded that the respondent has taken into account, the rates that were prevailing in the year 1983, the fresh notifications came to be issued one decade thereafter.

¶16

Learned Government Pleader for Appeals, on the other hand, submits that the appellants herein did not adduce any evidence whatever and the trial Court was left with no option except to confirm the awards. He contends that the original notification was issued in 1983 and what was issued subsequently was only an errata and the date of that errata cannot be taken as basis. He further submits that the appellants were supposed to adduce independent evidence rather than to rely upon the sale statistics mentioned in the respective awards.

¶17

All the four L.A.O.Ps. were in relation to the land acquired for the same purpose and the relevant draft notifications were issued in 1983. It is not as if the references came to be made in a scattered manner and the Court was not able to keep track of the matters. Even the numbering of the L.A.O.Ps. is almost continues. It would have been more convenient for the trial Court as well as for the parties, had the L.A.O.Ps. been clubbed.

¶18

In all the O.Ps., two points were framed, namely (1) whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and if so, what is the adequate market value? and (2) whether the award lapses in the light of Section 11-A of the Act?

¶19

The evidence in the O.Ps. comprised of;

¶20

L.A.O.P.No.76 of 1999: On behalf of the claimants, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was filed. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were filed.

¶21

L.A.O.P.No.77 of 1999: On behalf of the claimants, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed.

¶22

L.A.O.P.No.79 of 1999: On behalf of the claimants, C.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were filed. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed and Ex.X1 was taken on record.

¶23

L.A.O.P.No.80 of 1999: On behalf of the claimants, C.Ws.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were filed.

¶24

In all the O.Ps., both the points were held against the claimants.

¶25

In this batch of appeals, the following points arise for consideration:

¶26

(1) Whether the approach of the trial Court on procedural or substantive aspects was correct? and

¶27

(2) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation?

¶28

Point No.1: The judgments in all the four O.Ps. are similar, except for slight changes as to the discussion about the documents. The trial Court dealt with certain important aspects in all the O.Ps. The first was about the date that can be treated as relevant. The second was about the question as to whether the notifications can be said to have lapsed, by operation of Section 11-A of the Act. The third was about the failure of the claimants to examine the persons connected with the transactions.

¶29

As observed earlier, notifications were published on 06.06.1983 (three notifications) and 08.07.1983 (one notification) in the first instance, covering the lands in two villages. Hardly, any progress was made. It appears that there was a serious dispute about the alignment or the exact extent that is needed for that purpose. For instance, the extent of the land covered by the notification, which is the subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.77 of 1999, was Acs.28.50 cents. However, possession of only an extent of Acs.8.33 cents was taken, that too almost one decade thereafter i.e. on 01.03.1992. Realising that the purport of acquisition has completely changed, a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 22.01.1998. It is one month thereafter, that the award was passed on 28.02.1998.

¶30

The same exercise was repeated in respect of rest of the three notifications that were initially published in 1983. When the Government itself realised that it cannot pass any award on the basis of a notification published on 06.06.1983, and has chosen to issue a fresh notification on 22.01.1998, there was no basis for the trial Court to treat the date of acquisition as 06.06.1983.

¶31

Once the possession of the land was taken in the year 1992, Section 11-A of the Act that nullifies the proceedings on failure to pass awards within two years; has no application. This serious error occurred on account of the fact that the trial Court did not take into account, the fact that fresh notification though called as errata was issued on 22.01.1998.

¶32

The precedents that governed a totally different situation was pressed into service and the contention advanced by the appellants herein, be it as regards the relevant date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the purport of Section 11-A of the Act was negatived. The approach adopted by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

¶33

It has already been mentioned that the trial Court discarded the transactions relied upon by the appellants by observing that the persons connected therewith were not examined. In some cases, even where the persons connected therewith were examined, the sales were discarded on the ground that the evidence is not clear as to the similarity of the acquired land on the one hand and the land covered by the transaction on the other. In the first case, Ex.A1 was filed, but it was discarded by observing that it is a solitary transaction. In the second case, reliance was placed by the appellants on the award itself, which reflected two transactions. The

¶34

contention, however, was rejected by observing that no one connected with the transaction was examined. Here again, we are compelled to observe that the trial Court has adopted a negative, inconsistent and unwarranted approach. It has also ignored the mandate under Section 51-A of the Act. We, therefore, answer Point No.1 in the negative and hold that the approach adopted by the trial Court was not proper.

¶35

Point No.2: Now, it needs to be seen as to whether the market value fixed by the respondent for the acquired land was proper. The trial Court has virtually rendered the entire exercise of reference nugatory by simply affirming the award. Section 23 of the Act provides guidance in the context of fixing the market value for the acquired land. Briefly stated, it should be the price, which a willing purchaser is prepared to pay for a land of similar nature. Naturally, the sale transactions of the contemporary period would be of considerable importance.

¶36

All the acquired lands were abutting the drain on either side. They are fertile wet lands. In the Districts of Guntur, Krishna, East and West Godavari, a typical phenomenon exists. Since the Rivers of Krishna and Godavari flow from those Districts, there are vast extents of delta or fertile lands. While the fertility of the land and availability of water in abundance is a boon, the possibility of the lands being inundated in the event of floods is a negative factor. That is the reason why, the drain canals in those Districts are as important as the irrigation canals. When the availability of water is almost assured, the proximity of the lands to the drain canals, would be an added advantage.

¶37

The respondent did take into account, the comparable sales in

¶38

the course of passing the awards. For example, in the 2^nd L.A.O.P., the award was marked as Ex.B1. Three sale transactions were mentioned therein and the particulars are as under:

¶39

Sl. No.	Document No. & date	Sy. No	Extent sold Ac.Cts	Amount of sale	R a t e per acre	Classification of the land
1.	1941,Dt:14.6.82	17-5	2.40	18,500/-	7,708/-	G o v t . dry land
2.	3793,Dt:22.09.82	24-1 24-2	0.46	14,000/-	30,435/-	“
3.	3847,Dt:29.09.82	3-2 4-1	0.45½	13,000/-	28,571/-	“

¶40

Ex.B2 is the sketch that reflected the location of the lands covered by transactions 2 and 3. They abut the drain canal as do the acquired lands. The only basis for the respondent to discard these sale transactions was that the lands covered by them were also acquired. There cannot be any lopsided, logic or reason than this.

¶41

More curious is the reason assigned by the learned trial Judge for ignoring the transactions, reflected in Ex.B1. He observed that the claimants therein did not examine anyone in relation to the transaction. The trial Court observed as under, in this regard:

¶42

“The claimants referred to two sale transactions in their evidence. As I have already stated, they did not choose to examine the purchaser or seller of these two transactions nor they chooseed to file the relevant documents before this Court. No doubt, a perusal of Ex.B1 would show that these two transactions are sales 2 and 3 in the sales statistics furnished to the Land Acquisition Officer. He has discarded them on the ground that they are also affected by the acquisition so much so he was of the impression that they do not reflect the true market value. Nothing prevented the claimants to examine the parties connected to those two transactions and file the relevant documents before this Court and prove that the transactions are genuine and the market value reflected in the said documents is true. In The

¶43

Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Collector, Vijayawada Vs. Shaik Banileem and others reported in AIR 1996 A.P. 14, their Lordships have held that where number of registered documents are not available but only a single document of sale for a small piece of land is available and if the same is proved to be genuine, it can be relied on for the purpose of fixation of market value. In this case there were only three sale statistics available for the relevant period and if the claimants examined any one of them before the Court, this Court may have accepted one of the transactions. But, the claimants failed to examine the parties to the transaction.”

¶44

Reliance was placed upon certain precedents. However, he totally ignored the principle underlying Section 50-A of the Act. It reads as under:

¶45

“50-A: Acceptance of certified copy as evidence:- In any proceedings under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.”

¶46

Though the provision refers to the instances of the certified copies of the sale deeds being filed, in the instant case, there cannot be any doubt about the particulars of transactions 1 to 3 mentioned in Ex.B1. It is only when the proof of a document is at issue, that the filing thereof becomes relevant. In the context of ascertaining the market value, the particulars that were gathered from the Office of the Registrar are as authenticated as are the relevant documents themselves. Added to that, Ex.B1 is the one, authored by the respondent and virtually there does not exist any necessity to the appellants to prove it.

¶47

It has already been mentioned that the trial Court took the view

¶48

that unless the persons connected with the transaction are examined, the market value mentioned therein cannot be taken into account. In the 1^st L.A.O.P. (L.A.O.P.No.76 of 1991), Ex.A1, a sale deed, dated 18.09.1982, was filed. Ac.0.33 cents of land of the same village was sold for a sum of Rs.9,000/-. It works out to Rs.27,000/- per acre. The persons connected therewith were examined. The trial Court, however, observed that a solitary transaction cannot be taken into account. Relevant portion reads as under:

¶49

“There is no other transaction except Ex.A1 transaction available at the relevant period. In a decision in The Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Collector, Vijayawada Vs. Shaik Banileem and others reported in AIR 1996 A.P. 14, their Lordships have held that ‘where number of registered documents are not available but only a single document of sale for a small piece of land is available and if the same is proved to be genuine, it can be relied on for the purpose of fixation of market value of a vast extent of land subject to the condition of making adequate deductions and the land having a potential value for the house sites”. The land under Ex.A1 transaction is in an extent of Ac.0.33 cents. It cannot be said to be for a lesser extent because the total land acquired is only Acs.15.28 cents ranging from minimum of one cent to maximum of Ac.1.96 cents. But, then as being contended by the Assistant Government Pleader, this transaction cannot be accepted since it appears to be with the knowledge of the proposed acquisition.”

¶50

The curiosity gets shriller when we look into the judgment rendered in the 3^rd L.A.O.P. (L.A.O.P.No.79 of 1999). Here, Exs.A1 and A2, which reflected two transactions of the same village, during the contemporary period, were filed. The persons connected with the documents were examined. Lest it be said that the documents were procured by the claimants, a sale deed marked as Ex.A1, was filed through a third party. Let us see what the trial Court has observed in

¶51

this regard:

¶52

“The learned Advocate for the claimants argued that the market value of the acquired lands would be on par with the market value reflected in Ex.A2 and Ex.X1 during the year 1976 itself. Therefore, as time passes the value increases and so the claim for market value at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre is reasonable and should be accepted by the Court. There are two minus factors for accepting the value under Exs.A2 and X1. Firstly, they relate to the year 1976, which is not within the period of three years from the date of 4 (1) notification, which is the crucial date on which the market value has to be fixed. Secondly, the lands covered by Exs.A2 and X1 as seen from Ex.B1 are far away from the acquired lands. The other minus factors that should be kept in mind in accepting the market value under Exs.A2 and X1 are they relate to smaller extents of land, which would naturally fetch more value. The location of these lands is away from the drain and nearer to the village on which ground also they fetch more value. The same value taken into consideration of the escalation of the price from time to time in view of the time lag between them as being argued by the land Advocate for the claimants, I feel, cannot be accepted. Thus, practically there is absolutely no material placed by the claimants to enable the Court to arrive at correct market value of the acquired lands.”

¶53

The determination or consistency if at all on the part of the trial Court, was to deny any enhancement of the compensation to the claimants before it, at any cost. Whatever be the evidence on record or the grounds pleaded by the poor farmers, whose lands are acquired, we totally disapprove such an approach.

¶54

Whether one takes into account the transactions covered by items 2 and 3 of Ex.A1 in the 1^st L.A.O.P., or transactions 2 and 3 in Ex.B1 in the 2^nd L.A.O.P. or Exs.A1, A2 and X1 in the 3^rd L.A.O.P., the inescapable conclusion is that the market value for the

¶55

lands, similar to those acquired from the appellants, was in the range of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- in the year 1983.

¶56

If the subsequent notifications are to be taken as the basis, the corresponding enhancement has to be ordered. Even if the extents covered by the transactions referred to above are to be treated as smaller, the reduction if any, to be effected virtually stands neutralised on account of the appreciation over the decade. We are of the view that the market value can safely be taken at Rs.25,000/per acre uniformly, in all the four L.A.O.Ps.

¶57

Hence, we allow the appeals by enhancing the market value to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per acre. The appellants shall be entitled to the benefits of solatium, additional market value etc., from the date of subsequent notification i.e. 22.01.1998. The trial Court shall ensure that the enhanced compensation is passed on to the actual parties or their legal representatives, as the case may be, avoiding any other middlemen. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.

¶59

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶60

______________________

¶61

M.S.K.JAISWAL,J

¶62

Dt:22.01.2014 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl

Kommalapati Buddamma v. The Land AcquisitionOfficer and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kommalapati Buddamma v. The Land AcquisitionOfficer and

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

T.Prasada Reddy Vs T.Sumithramma

Sri K.L. Sreedhar Reddy, Vs M/s Midwest (India) Investors Welfare Association

N.Sundaramanikyam Vs Laoandrdo Peddapuram

Damegunta Chandrasekhara Reddy Vs Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional Officer

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

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