Allowed

E.Lakshmaiah v. the R.D.O.Cum L.a.O.Kurnool

Telangana HC13 Jun 2014AS/1890/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Review Application permitted legal heirs of a deceased appellant to review a judgment. The Court enhanced compensation from Rs.24,000 to Rs.65,000 per acre based on the highest sale deed evidence and awarded interest from the date of notification.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 03.01.2007 in A.S.Nos.1890 and 2236 of 2001 modified; compensation enhanced to Rs.65,000/acre with interest.

E.Lakshmaiah Vs the R.D.O.Cum L.a.O.Kurnool — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

REVIEW A.S.MP.No.947 of 2014 IN A.S.No.1890 of 2001

¶3

AND

¶4

A.S.MP.No.1036 of 2014 IN A.S.No.2236 of 2001

¶5

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶6

Review A.S.MP.No.947 of 2014 is filed to review the judgment and decree, dated 03.01.2007, rendered in A.S.No.1890 of 2001, and A.S.MP.No.1036 of 2014 is filed to reopen A.S.No.2236 of 2001 for adding legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent in the appeal.

¶7

One E. Lakshmaiah is the sole appellant in A.S.No.1890 of 2001 and sole respondent in A.S.No.2236 of 2001. Though he died even before the disposal of appeals on 03.01.2007, as the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, the appeals were disposed of on 03.01.2007. Today, the matters are taken up for hearing, on the petitions filed by the legal heirs of E. Lakshmaiah, seeking to permit them to come on record and also to review the judgment, dated 03.01.2007.

¶8

The appeals under Section 54 of the Land

¶9

Acquisition Act, 1894, are preferred aggrieved by order, dated 09.04.2001, passed in O.P.No.111 of 1998 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶10

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.

¶11

An extent of Ac.1-29 cents of land covered by Survey No.337/A3B situated at Dhone Town belonging to the claimants was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of making improvements to Geometrics of Dhone Road. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 14.08.1995. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.09.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed an Award on 30.12.1997 fixing the compensation at Rs.24,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court claiming that they are entitled to compensation at Rs.100/per square yard, which was tried in O.P.No.111 of 1998 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶12

Before the reference Court, on behalf of the Referring Officer, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of claimants, RWs.1 to 3 were

¶13

examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

¶14

The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land from Rs.24,000/- per acre to Rs.36,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, A.S.No.2236 of 2001 is preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer–cum–Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, and seeking further enhancement of compensation, A.S.No.1890 of 2001 is preferred by the claimants.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have also perused the material available on record, including the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶16

RW.1, who is the elder son of the deceased E. Lakshmaiah, in his deposition has stated that an extent of Ac.0-70 cents of land covered by Survey No.385 situated at Dhone was sold for Rs.56,000/- by one A. Nagalingareddy to one Pinjari Sivaiah and the said land is situated at a distance of two furlongs from the acquired land. He has also stated that an extent of 1 acre of land covered by Survey No.362 situated at Dhone, which is at a distance of one furlong from the acquired land, was sold by one Kishan Singh to one Patan Mohammad Shabeer Ahmed Khan for Rs.65,000/-.

¶17

RW.2, in his deposition, has stated that under Ex.B1 sale deed dated 22.03.1995, he purchased an extent of 1 acre of land in Survey No.362 for a consideration of Rs.65,000/- and the acquired land is suitable for residential plots, and by the date of acquisition, the market value of the lands in the vicinity was Rs.150/- per Square Yard.

¶18

RW.3, who is a resident of Dhone, deposed that he sold some of the plots in Survey No.362 at Rs.40/- per Square Yard under Exs.B2 to B4, registered sale deeds, dated 14.09.1994, and the acquired land is situated on the other side of the road adjoining the lands covered under Exs.B2 to B4.

¶19

From a perusal of the Award, it is clear that out of 24 sale transactions pertaining to Dhone for three years prior to the date of publication of 4 (1) notification i.e., 14.08.1995, gathered from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Dhone, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration only six sale transactions. Under item No.1 of the sale transactions mentioned in Ex.A1, an extent of 1 acre of land covered by Survey No.362 was sold at Rs.15,000/- per acre on 28.09.1992 and under item No.5 (Document No.671, dated 25.03.1995) an extent of 1 acre of land in the same survey number was sold at Rs.65,000/- per acre, but the Land Acquisition Officer has

¶20

discarded item No.5 on the ground that it does not reflect the true market value. As already noticed, under Ex.B1 - sale deed, dated 22.03.1995, an extent of 1 acre of land covered by Survey No.362 was sold for Rs.65,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.24,000/- per acre, has taken into consideration the sale transaction effected on 18.05.1995 in respect of an extent of Ac.1-10 cents in Survey No.333, which was sold for Rs.21,600/-, but he has discarded another sale deed, dated 14.03.1995, executed for an extent of Ac.0-32 ½ cents of land in Survey No.333, which was sold for Rs.17,500/-, which works out to Rs.53,846/per acre.

¶21

In Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshamamma Rao Bahadur,

¶22

Ranee of Vuyyur vs. The Collector of Madras^[1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by the Government should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In view of the same, the sale deed covered by Document No.671, dated 25.03.1995, which reflects the highest and true market value of the land, should be preferred to the rest. RW.2 in his evidence has deposed that the distance between the acquired land and the land covered under Ex.B1 is less than one furlong. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the acquired land is adjacent to National Highway No.7. It is also to be noticed that Ex.B1 - sale

¶23

deed, dated 22.03.1995, was executed prior to issuance of present 4 (1) notification, dated 14.08.1995.

¶24

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.65,000/per acre. The claimants are also entitled to all statutory benefits, including additional compensation at 12% per annum from the date of publication of 4 (1) notification to the date of passing of Award or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. So far as interest is concerned, since possession was taken even before issuance of 4 (1) notification, the claimants are entitled to interest only from the date of issuance of

¶25

4 (1) notification and not anterior to that, in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.L.Jain (D)

¶26

by LRs. V. DDA and others^[2] . Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of issuance of 4 (1) notification i.e., 14.08.1995 and thereafter, at 15% per annum till the date of payment of compensation.

¶27

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of and the judgment, dated 03.01.2007, rendered in A.S.Nos.1890 and 2236 of 2001 stands modified.

¶28

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶29

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH

¶30

REDDY

¶31

JUSTICE A.SHANKAR

¶32

NARAYANA