Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ch. Shesh Rao

Telangana HC3 Feb 2014AS/1035/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a land acquisition award, the Appellate Court upheld the Reference Court's decision to award Rs.18,000/- per acre. The Court held that fixing compensation based on an assumed net income and using the capitalization method was not illegal or arbitrary given the lack of documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs Ch. Shesh Rao — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.1035 of 2003

¶3

JUDGMENT : (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Adilabad, aggrieved by the Award, dated 04.09.2002, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, in O.P.No.105 of 2001.

¶5

The land of respondent/claimants admeasuring Ac.3.02 guntas in Sy.No.60/2 of Anderband village of Adilabad District, was acquired for formation of tank. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Adilabad District Gazette on 12.04.2000 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary inquiry, has fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed, respondent/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was referred to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad and was tried in O.P.No.105 of 2001 along with another petition in O.P.No.104 of 2001. Before the reference Court, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of claimants, and RW-1 was examined and Ex.B1/Award was marked on behalf of the Land Acquisition

¶6

Officer. The reference Court, while considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by such award, this appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant that though no evidence was adduced before the reference Court to show the market value of the acquired lands, the reference Court, without recording valid reasons, has enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,000/to Rs.18,000/- per acre.

¶7

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that as there were no registered sale deeds pertaining to relevant point of time, believing the oral evidence on record, the Court below has rightly adopted the capitalization method and by applying the multiplier 12, arrived at the compensation payable for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶8

In this case, admittedly, there are no registered sale deeds pertaining to relevant point of time, so as to arrive at the compensation payable for the lands acquired. In such circumstances, it is well settled that in the absence of any acceptable documentary evidence for determination of market value of agricultural land, it is

¶9

always open to adopt the capitalization method for fixing the just and fair compensation for the acquired lands. In this case, PW-1, who is one of the claimants, has stated in clear terms that the acquired lands were being cultivated for raising commercial crops like cotton, maize etc. and they were getting net annual income of Rs.5,000/- per acre. PW-2 is a person who said to have sold away the yield of the crops raised by the claimants under Exs.A-2 to A-6 Takpatties. Though the reference officer i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer was examined at length, there was nothing on record to dispute the net income as pleaded by the claimants. Having regard to the evidence on record and also by relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Spl.Dy.Collector (LA) Vs.

¶10

Ravada Raju Babu & anothe r^[1] , which was based on the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

¶11

o f State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh^[2] , the reference Court has taken Rs.1,500/- as net income per acre and applied the multiplier of 12 for arriving at just and reasonable compensation. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, increasing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- per acre to Rs.18,000/- per acre cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary, warranting interference in this appeal.

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is devoid of

¶13

merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶15

stand closed.

¶16

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶17

__________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J 3^rd February 2014 ajr