Partly allowed

The State v. B. Ramesh

Telangana HC5 Jun 2014AS/1671/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by the State Commissioner against a reference court order fixing land acquisition compensation. While confirming the market value of Rs.65,000 per acre based on the sale deeds presented by the claimants, the Court held that statutory benefits are only payable from the date of notification under Section 4(1), correcting the lower court's award which included benefit

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed only to the extent that claimants are not entitled to statutory benefits for the period anterior to the notification under Section 4(1); the impugned order was confirmed in all

The State Vs B. Ramesh — 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.1671 OF 2003

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This appeal is preferred by the State – Land Acquisition Officer – cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aggrieved of the order, dated 14-03-2002, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.P. No.2 of 2001.

¶5

2. Respondents – Claimants were owners and possessors of agricultural land, admeasuring Acs.23-33 guntas, situated at Engal village of Chandurthi Mandal in Karimnagar District. The said land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of formation of New Tank across ‘Nakkavagu’. Draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17-09-1998. Even prior to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, possession was taken on 14-021996. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary inquiry, passed Award on 31-05-1999, fixing

¶6

the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,100/- per acre from the date of taking possession till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of award.

¶7

3. Aggrieved by the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents – claimants have filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference. On their applications, the matter was referred to the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Sircilla, and the same was tried in O.P. No.2 of 2001.

¶8

4. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and documentary evidence,

¶9

Exs.A-1 and A-2, was marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 – Award was marked.

¶10

5. The reference Court, based on the documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and by taking average price as reflected in the aforesaid two sale deeds (Exs.A-1 and A-2), fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.65,000/per acre and allowed the statutory benefits from the date of taking possession till the date of award. Aggrieved by

¶11

the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

¶12

6. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General that the reference Court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre in the absence of any valuable and acceptable evidence. It is further contended that the documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 and A-2 is with regard to small extents, i.e., Ac.0-20 guntas and Ac.010 guntas respectively, as such, the reference Court has erroneously relied on such documentary evidence, while fixing the market value of the acquired lands. He also contended that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs v. DDA and others,^[1] a n d Tahera Khotoon and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

¶13

and others,^[2] the respondents – claimants are not entitled for the statutory benefits for the period anterior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶14

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants, that the lands, which were acquired by the government were fertile lands and fit for cultivation of commercial crops. He further submitted that under Ex.A1, dated 17-11-1993, which is about five years earlier to

¶15

the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

¶16

Ac.0-20 guntas of land covered by the very same Survey No.375, was sold for Rs.25,000/- which works out to Rs.50,000/- per acre. He also submitted that, under Ex.A2 dated 07-12-1995, Ac.0-10 guntas of land was sold for an amount of Rs.20,000/- which works out to Rs.80,000/per acre. He further submitted that though the sale consideration under Ex.A-2 was higher than the sale consideration under Ex.A-1, the reference Court has taken the average price and fixed the market value at Rs.65,000/- per acre, which is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the reference Court.

¶17

8. Having heard both sides, we have perused the material on record. In this case, it is to be noticed that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of formation of New Tank across ‘Nakkavagu’, near Engal village of Chandurthi Mandal in Karimnagar District, including the other land covered by Survey No.375. Draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17.09.1998. To prove the market price for the acquired lands, on behalf of the respondents – claimants, claimant No.1 himself was examined as PW.1 and one Kusumba Lingaiah, who is the vendee in Ex.A1, as PW.2, was also examined. It is also to be noticed that Ex.A-1 is

¶18

dated 17-11-1993. The land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas out of same Survey No.375, was sold for an amount of Rs.25,000/- per acre, which works out to Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is true that under Ex.A-2 only an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas of land was sold on

¶19

07-12-1995 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. At the same time, even if Ex.A-1 is taken into consideration, which is dated 17.11.1993 and 10% escalation thereon is given every year, it comes to more than Rs.65,000/- per acre, which the reference Court has fixed.

¶20

9. Having regard to the evidence on record, it is clear that the acquired lands were agricultural lands and were being used for agricultural purposes by the respondents and the same were acquired by the Government for public purpose of formation of New Tank across ‘Nakkavagu’. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre by the reference Court is just and reasonable. In view of the same, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, but, at the same time, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra, the respondents – claimants are not entitled for statutory benefits for the period anterior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In this case, draft

¶21

notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17-09-1998. In that view of the matter, we make it clear that the respondents are entitled for the statutory benefits, interest on solatium etc., only from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as much as, possession was taken earlier to the notification. At the same time, we also hold that the respondents are entitled for additional market value under Section 23 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of notification till the date of passing of the Award.

¶22

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of modifying the statutory benefits, as discussed above, and in all other respects, the impugned order is confirmed.

¶23

11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶24

_________________________

¶25

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶26

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶27

June 05, 2014.

¶28

Mgr