Appeal filed by Special Deputy Collector challenging the enhancement of compensation by the reference Court from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, citing lack of comparable sales evidence.
Appeal suit is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, stand closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
APPEAL SUIT No.1008 OF 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This appeal is filed, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the order, dated 28.06.2000, passed in O.P.No.35 of 1996, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.
Lands belonging to the respondents - claimants admeasuring Acs.4-09 guntas situated in the Villages of Kandugula, Bheempalli and Chelpur in Karimnagar District, were acquired for excavation of Tail Channel of Sri Ram Sagar Project. Notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette Nos.246 and 265, dated 26.05.1986 and 03.06.1986, respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry on 10.06.1987 and 11.06.1987, passed award by fixing the market value at Rs.4,500/- per acre for Kandugula Village and Rs.5,500/- per acre for Bheempalli and Chelpur Villages. Not satisfied with the same, the respondents – claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.35 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.
On behalf of the respondents - claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the appellant – Special Deputy Collector, no oral evidence was adduced and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.25,000/per acre. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
Having heard the learned Government Pleader, we have perused the material available on record.
It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for appellant that by taking into consideration the comparable sale deeds, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value and that without there being any acceptable evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre.
PW.1, who is claimant No.5, in his evidence has stated that the lands acquired were used to raise commercial crops like Chilly, Cotton, Maize and Paddy and that they were getting net income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre every year, after deducting expenses.
PW.2, who resides in the adjacent Village to Kandugula Village, in his evidence, has stated that he owns agricultural lands in Peddapapaiehpalli Village and when the same were acquired for the purpose of Kakatiya Canal, initially, market value was fixed at Rs.3,100/- per acre and on reference, it was enhanced to Rs.14,000/per acre, which was marked as Ex.A3. It is further stated that the market value of the lands in question during 1984 – 85 was between Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/-.
Similarly, PW.3, whose lands were also acquired for the purpose of Sri Ram Sagar Project, in his evidence, has stated that an award was passed in the year 1985, by which the reference Court has fixed the market value for his lands at Rs.15,000/- per acre, which was marked as Ex.A1.
It is true that there are no comparable sales for the purpose of determination of market value for the lands in question. As it is not in dispute that the lands of PWs.2 and 3 were acquired on earlier occasions for public purpose, though they are in adjoining Villages, the market value fixed for such lands can be taken as a guiding factor for the purpose of fixing market value to the lands in question. It is clear from the evidence on record that under Exs.A1 and A3, for the lands which were acquired two to three years prior to the acquisition of the lands in question, the reference Court has fixed the market value at
Rs.14,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per acre.
Taking note of rise in prices, even for agricultural lands and as the lands now acquired were notified three years later to the lands which were covered under Exs.A1 and A3, the reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre. Having regard to the time gap between the lands covered under Exs.A1 and A3 and the present notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for the lands under acquisition, we are of the view that the enhancement of compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre is neither illegal nor arbitrary, warranting interference by this Court.
The Appeal Suit is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. No costs.
JUSTICE R.SUBHASH
REDDY
__________________________________
JUSTICE A. SHANKAR
NARAYANA
31st January, 2014 MD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
APPEAL SUIT No.1008 OF 2002
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)
31st January, 2014
MD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre by the reference Court is illegal or arbitrary in the absence of comparable sales.
Whether the reference Court's fixation of market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre warrants interference on appeal.
Whether the evidence of market value fixed in earlier acquisitions of adjoining lands can be considered a guiding factor for the current acquisition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Appellant - Special Deputy Collector
Respondents - Claimants
R. Subhash Reddy
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
