Partly allowed

Chukka Ramulu v. Special Tahsildar

Telangana HC10 Jun 2014AS/1266/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals against the market value of land acquired for railway conversion. Disagreeing with the Reference Court's Rs. 70,000/acre valuation, the Court adopted a sale deed (Ex.A-4) at Rs. 94,000/acre as the best evidence, ordering enhancement from seventy thousand to ninety-four thousand rupees per acre.

What did the court decide?

Market value of acquired land enhanced from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 94,000 per acre with all statutory benefits.

Chukka Ramulu Vs Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶3

A.S. Nos.1163, 1164, 1165, 1227, 1266 AND 1267 OF 2002

¶4

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Shankar Narayana)

¶5

Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, in L.A.O.P. Nos.404, 400, 402, 399, 401 and 403 of 1987, respectively, by the common order, dated 07-03-2002; the respective claimants preferred the instant appeals.

¶6

2. The factual background of the appeals in nutshell is as under:

¶7

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Railways, acquired an extent of Acs.27-02 cents comprised of Survey Nos.351, 352, 354, 356, 357 and 359, located in Nallapadu Village, Guntur District, for the purpose of conversion of Meter Gauge line into Broad Gauge line. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), was issued on 16-01-1985 invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act. In view of the urgency, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act

¶8

was dispensed with. Draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27-03-1986 and thereafter, publication was taken out in newspapers. However, it is clear from the contents of Ex.B-1, that no advance possession was taken.

¶9

The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting award enquiry, fixed market value at Rs.63,000/- per acre for the acquired land. Since the claimants protested for fixation of market value of the land at that rate, reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Civil Court.

¶10

3. Before the Reference Court, six (06) witnesses were examined and five (05) documents were marked on behalf of the appellants to substantiate their claim. On behalf of the referring officer, Senior Assistant from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Guntur was examined as RW.1 and the award passed in the instant appeal bearing No.2/1987, dated 10-03-1987, is exhibited as Ex.B-1.

¶11

4. Claimant No.6 in O.P. No.401 of 1987, claimant No.6 in O.P. No.399 of 1987, claimant No.7 in O.P. No.400 of 1987, claimant No.5 in O.P. No.402 of 1987, claimant No.1 in O.P. No.403 of 1987 and claimant No.2 in O.P. No.406 of 1987 were examined as PWs.1 to 6, respectively.

¶12

5. The reference Court, on appreciation of

¶13

evidence, both, oral and documentary, let in by the parties respectively, answered point Nos.1 to 7, formulated by it, in paragraph No.19 of the award under challenge.

¶14

6 . Reference Court excluded the sale transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-5 on the ground that they relate to smaller extents of land. Though, the reference Court referred to Exs.A-2 to A-4, still, no reasons were assigned as to accepting or rejecting the sale transactions under Exs.A-2 and A-3. However, the reference Court basing on the fact that the land acquired under Ex.B-1 is situated in Survey Nos.351 to 357 and that the sale transaction covered by Ex.A-4, dated 07-05-1982, relates to the extent in Survey No.351, wherein, the vlaue of the land works out to Rs.95,000/- per acre, and observing that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.63,000/- per acre based on Exs.B-1 and Ex.A-4 and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, opined that it would be just and appropriate to fix the market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre to meet the ends of justice and fixed the said rate and awarded compensation by granting all the statutory benefits.

¶15

7. The claimants having got dissatisfied with the fixation of market value of the acquired land at Rs.70,000/per acre by the reference Court, preferred the instant appeals requesting to fix the market value at

¶16

Rs.1,00,000/- per acre by way of enhancement.

¶17

8. Heard Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the appellants (claimants), and the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the State and perused the material on record.

¶18

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prices mentioned in the sale transactions referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B-1 and the sale transactions covered by Exs.A-1 to

¶19

A-5 clinchingly establish that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre by the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the reference Court ought to have fixed the market value for the acquired land at least at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the reference Court also did not assign proper reasons for discarding the sale transactions under Exs.A-1 to A-5 and in arriving at the market value of the acquired land at Rs.70,000/- per acre, though, evidence in abundance was let in by the appellants. Learned counsel, therefore, requests to enhance the market value from Rs.70,000/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶20

10. The learned Government Pleader for appeals supported the market value fixed by the reference Court contending that the extents covered by Exs.A-1 to A-5 are smaller bits compared to the total extent of land

¶21

acquired, and, therefore, the sale transactions in Exs.A-1 to A-5 were rightly not considered by the reference Court and that the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement.

¶22

11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhancement of compensation?

¶23

POINT:

¶24

12. The evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is to the effect that the market value of the acquired land was wrongly fixed at Rs.63,000/- per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer, though, it was Rs.5,00,000/- per acre at the relevant time and that the adjacent lands were purchased at the rate between Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. They relate to Exs.A-1 and A-2. Under Ex.A-1 one P. Nageswara Rao purchased 240 square yards in Survey No.476 from Bhavanam Konda Reddy for a total consideration of Rs.9,600/- on 19-06-1982.

¶25

Under Ex.A-2, Ac. 0.40 cents of land in Survey No.476 was sold by Bhavanam Konda Reddy for Rs.40,000/- to one Talla Audinarayana Reddy which works out to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. These two documents were marked through the evidence of PW.1, whereas Exs.A-3 to A-5 registration copies of sale deeds were marked on

¶26

consent. Ex.A-3 relates to sale of Ac.0-50 cents of land in Survey No.520-B for a consideration of Rs.47,500/-, by one Challa Pamula Reddy to Duggempudi Anji Reddy. The value per acre works out to Rs.95,000/-. Ex.A-4 relates to sale of Ac.0-50 cents of land in Survey No.351 for a consideration of Rs.47,000/- by D. Venkata Sivarami Reddy to Talla Koti Reddy which works out to Rs.94,000/- per acre. Ex.A-5 relates to sale of 256 square yards of land in Survey No.522/2 for a total consideration of Rs.10,496/- by Challa Pamula Reddy to Kolli Ramasastrulu. Admittedly, these transactions are not finding place in the sale statistics enumerated in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. No reasons are forthcoming in the award for not referring to them in the sale instances collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is clear from the contents of Ex.B-1 that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered any of the sale items referred to in Ex.B-1, but he made local inspection and arrived at the market value fixed by him.

¶27

13. One N. Venkatapathi, Senior Assistant, who worked in the Revenue Divisional Office, Guntur, was examined as RW.1 since, as per the evidence of RW.1, the Land Acquisition Officer, who passed the award, is no more. He asserts in his chief-examination that some persons with business mind purchased lands by the side of the existing railway track at exorbitant rates with a view

¶28

to sell after converting it into house plots and to gain profit. However, in the preceding sentence, he asserts that the exact location where the lands were acquired and the extents to be acquired in Nallapadu village for formation of B.G. line was not finalised in 1981. He also asserts that after thorough enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.63,000/- per acre and the local enquiry also confirmed the same. It is brought out in his cross-examination that he has joined in service in the year 1984 and since May 2001, he was working in the subject section of Revenue Divisional Office. His evidence is based on the contents mentioned in Ex.B-1. He answered in his

¶29

cross-examination that the statements said to have been recorded by the then Land Acquisition Officer were not available in the file and that he has no knowledge as to whether the Land Acquisition Officer has examined any person before passing Ex.B-1. He also admits that the Land Acquisition Officer did not mention the names of the vendors, vendees and the documents while discussing about the higher rate documents in his inspection report.

¶30

He admits that the highest price, as per the sale deeds, at the time of acquisition, was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in the vicinity of the acquired land. Thus, there is nothing in the evidence of this witness also to show that on what basis the Land Acquisition Officer has arrived at Rs.63,000/- per

¶31

acre for the acquired land while fixing the market value.

¶32

14. Now turning to the documentary evidence through Exs.A-1 to A-5, Ex.A-1 relates to a smaller extent of 240 square yards of land. Therefore, the reference Court was right in discarding the sale transaction therein. Ex.A-2 relates to Ac.0-40 cents of land.

¶33

As mentioned above, the reference Court excluded the said transaction on the same ground. Exs.A-3 to A-5 were marked on consent;

¶34

that has been the reason, reference to these documents do not find place in the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. Thus, it is clear, that the genuineness of the sale transactions covered by these three documents cannot be doubted. Amongst Exs.A-3 to A-5, Ex.A-5 relates to smaller extent of 256 square yards, and, therefore, the same can be excluded. The reference Court relied on Ex.A-4 and also on Ex.B-1 and enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.63,000/- per acre, fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs.70,000/- per acre. But, as observed by us in the above, no reasons were assigned as to why the rate reflected in Ex.A-4 was not adopted. It is no doubt true, that none of the parties connected with Exs.A-2 to A-4 were examined by the appellants, but that cannot be a ground to discard Exs.A-2 to A-4 in view of the provisions of Section 51-A of the Act. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on

¶35

16-01-1985 and the sale transactions under Exs.A-2 to A- 4 are

¶36

dated 06-05-1982, 16-11-1981 and 07-05-1982 respectively.

¶37

Again amongst Exs.A-2 to A-4, Ex.A-4 can be preferred for the reason that the extent sold under Ex.A-4 is covered by D. No.351 and the major portion of the acquired land is comprised of the very same survey number, though, they are in different sub-division numbers. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Ex.A-4 constitutes best piece of documentary evidence in fixing the market value since, invariably it has to be construed as an exemplar sale which was executed more than two years prior to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

¶38

15. We, therefore, do not have any hesitation to adopt the price shown in Ex.A-4, for the land under acquisition, which works out to Rs.94,000/- per acre and accordingly, fix the market value for the acquired land at Rs.94,000/- per acre.

¶39

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the batch of appeals is partly allowed enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.94,000/- (Rupees ninety four thousand only) per acre with all statutory benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

17. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous

¶41

Applications, if any, pending in this batch of appeals, stand disposed of.

¶42

___________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶43

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶44

June 10, 2014. PV

Chukka Ramulu v. Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chukka Ramulu v. Special Tahsildar

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

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vs M. Sreenivasa Reddy

R.D.O.(L.a.O.) Kurnool Vs S.Siddappa

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs G. Venkata Ramana Reddy

Allada Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Jana Jaya Bharati

V. Narsi Reddy Vs Spl. Tahsildar (La) Railways

The Land Acquisition Officer / Special Deputy Collector, Vs G. Narayanamma