Partly allowed

The Special Deputy Collector, v. Shaifuddin

Telangana HC6 Sept 2013LAAS/486/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of appeals filed by the Referring Officer challenging the enhancement of land compensation by the trial court. The court held that the enhanced compensation was reasonable based on cited precedents but directed the District Collector to assess and pay compensation for the period between unlawful possession and the legal notification within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector to assess and pay compensation for deprivation of possession from 19.06.1997 to the date of Section 4(1) Notification within 12 weeks.

The Special Deputy Collector, Vs Shaifuddin — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

L.A.A.S. No.484, 486 and 487 of 2013

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶5

Since these appeals arises out of the common order dated 06.08.2012 in O.P.No.13 of 2001, 78 of 2002 and 109 of 2000, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶6

2) These Appeals have been filed by the Referring Officer challenging the common Order dated 06.08.2012 in O.P. Nos.13 of 2001, 78 of 2002 and 109 of 2000, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The impugned common Order was passed on a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short “the Act”).

¶7

3) The Government issued land acquisition proceedings dated 12.02.1999, under Section 4(1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the land of claimants to an extent of Ac.6-31 gts., land, situated in Sy.Nos.208/3, 209/3, 333/3, 334/3 and 391/3 of Sugur village of Pebbair Mandal for the purpose of excavation of Priyadarshini Jurala Project, Gadwal (PJP Canal). After enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre for the lands of the claimants and accordingly passed an Award No.59/99, dated 17.07.1999. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, on claimants’ applications matters were referred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Wanaparthy, and the same was numbered as O.P. Nos.13 of 2001, 78 of 2002 and 109 of 2000.

¶8

4) The learned Judge of the trial Court after an elaborate

¶9

enquiry had enhanced the compensation amount from 25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre for the acquired lands of the claimants with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal was filed by the Referring Officer.

¶10

5) On behalf of the claimants, the claimant in O.P.No.13 of 2001 was examined as P.W.1 and one K. Bojjamma, who was one of the claimants in O.P. No.111 of 2000, was examined as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2, which are certified copies of Judgments in O.P.No.111/2001 and Batch, dt.28.11.2002 and A.S.No.928/2003 and Batch, dt.25.09.2006 respectively. On behalf of the Referring Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1-Award proceedings No.59/99, dt.17.07.1999.

¶11

6) The Learned Government Pleader for appeals, appearing on behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, contended that the Court below ought not to have considered the Exs.P.1 and P.2, whereunder the lands were acquired and the compensation granted in that Order was reduced from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry lands; that the potentiality and fertility of the acquired lands are different from the lands covered under Exs.P.1 & P.2.

¶12

7) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence, hence no need for any interference with the orders of the trial Court.

¶13

8) As seen from the evidence on record, the claimant in O.P. No.13 of 2000 was examined as P.W.1 and by reiterating his contentions, he deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired some of the lands situated in their village for the same purpose, and on a reference made by the claimants, the trial Court had enhanced the market value at Rs.65,000/- per acre for dry lands

¶14

under Ex.P.1. He further deposed that the High Court has reduced the said enhancement to Rs.50, per acre for dry lands under Ex.P.2. He further deposed that since the lands covered under Ex.P.1 and the acquired lands are similar in nature they are entitled to get more compensation basing on Ex.P.2.

¶15

9) P.W.2-K. Bojjamma, who was one of the claimant in O.P.No.928/2003 & batch, deposed that the trial Court had fixed compensation for his dry land at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre and the same was reduced by the Hon’ble High Court to Rs.50,000/- per acre and his lands and the acquired lands are adjacent to each other and having equal fertility and potentiality.

¶16

10) R.W.1, Smt. Sasi Devi, the Land Acquisition Officer has reiterated her version as mentioned in the Award. However, in the cross-examination she admitted that the lower court had awarded compensation of Rs.,65,000/- per acre for dry lands and the same was reduced to Rs.50,000/- per acre by the High Court and she has deposited the compensation amount at the rate fixed by the Hon’ble High Court under Ex.P.2.

¶17

11) As seen from the evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the compensation enhanced under Ex.P.1-Order in O.P.No.111 of 2001, dt.28.11.2002, was reduced by this Court from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry lands under Ex.P.2-Judgment in A.S. No.928 of 2003 & Batch, dated 25.09.2006, and in pursuant to the same the Land Acquisition Officer had deposited the compensation amount accordingly. Further, for enhancing the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, the learned Judge of the trial Court had relied on the judgment reported in Bhim Singh and Ors. etc., Vs.

¶18

State of Haryana and Anr. ,^[1] , wherein it was held that in similar cases, no fault can be found with the Court for determination of Market

¶19

Value on the basis of earlier judgments. Further as seen from the judgment reported in The State of Maharashtra Vs. Nana Bal Patil

¶20

@ Rane^[2] , wherein it was held that when there were no sale transactions in village at relevant time, then Reference Court could always take into consideration of a sale instance of the land which was situated in adjacent village, provided sale instance was of a comparable land. Therefore, in the light of admissions made by R.W.1 about the nature and fertility of the lands being similar, Ex.P.1 can be the basis for arriving at the Market Value of the land under acquisition.

¶21

12) In view of the ratio laid down in the above judgments, placing reliance on Ex.P.2 by the trial Court for fixing the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre is cogent and reasonable.

¶22

13) Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. However, in the present case, as per record, advance possession was taken on 19.06.1997 prior to issuance of Section 4(1) Notification, dated 12.02.1999. Hence, the claimants are entitled to be compensated for their deprivation of possession from the date of their dispossession till the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification. Therefore, the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District is hereby directed to take necessary steps by appointing a competent Officer to assess the amount of compensation payable for the period, as mentioned above, to the claimants and, considering the fact that the acquisition is of the year 1995 and already about 28 years has been elapsed till now, the process should be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the Judgment in this appeal.

¶23

14) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the above

¶24

direction. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

¶25

______________ G. ROHINI, J

¶26

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶27

Date:06.09.2013. Ssv

¶28

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND