Partly allowed

K. Madan Mohan rao v. The State through La Officer / Rdo

Telangana HC29 Jan 2014AS/717/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the compensation enhancement in a land acquisition reference. The court held that while older sale deeds were genuine, a 40% deduction was necessary due to small extents, eventually fixing compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.26,600/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits.

K. Madan Mohan rao Vs The State through La Officer / Rdo — 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.717 of 2002

¶3

JUDGMENT : (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the claimant in O.P.No.56 of 1997, aggrieved by order dated 19.07.2001, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, in the said O.P. The appellant/claimant was owner and possessor of an extent of 2 acres of land covered by Sy.No.83/1, situated at Madharam village o f Munagala Mandal in Nalgonda District. The said land was acquired for construction of houses to Scheduled Caste and weaker sections people. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 06.02.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer, after inquiry, passed award on 03.08.1996, fixing the compensation at Rs.14,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet and the matter was tried in O.P.No.56 of 1997.

¶5

Before the reference Court, claimant was examined as PW-1 and on his behalf, PWs.2 to 4 were examined and documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of respondent/State, the Revenue

¶6

Divisional Officer, Suryapet was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked on his behalf, however, the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 03.12.1987, was marked as Ex.X-1. The trial Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, enhanced the compensation by 90% over the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and determined the compensation at Rs.26,600/- per acre for the acquired land. Seeking further enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, this appeal is filed.

¶7

Heard Sri G.Dhananjai, learned counsel for appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for respondent.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the land acquired is valuable land and is abutting National Highway No.9 and is suitable for house sites. It is submitted that the land acquired is wet land and commercial crops were being raised. It is further submitted that as the land is adjacent to the village site, it is suitable for house sites and inspite of documentary and oral evidence produced before the reference Court showing that the value of the acquired land is more than Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, the reference Court has confined the enhancement of compensation only to 90% over the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition officer, without assigning valid reasons. It is submitted by the

¶9

learned counsel that though comparable sale deeds are filed under Exs.A-1 to A-3 and sufficient oral evidence is adduced before the reference Court, there is no reason for enhancing the compensation only by 90%. It is submitted that the basic value register which is maintained in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kodad itself reflects the market value as Rs.1,25,000/- per acre for the purpose of registration, as such, there is no reason for restricting the compensation only to Rs.26,600/- per acre.

¶10

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent that the Land Acquisition Officer himself has ascertained the market value of the land by collecting data from the SubRegistrar’s office for a period of three years anterior to the date of notification and there are no sales showing the market value at Rs.26,600/- per acre. It is further submitted that as the documentary evidence produced on behalf of claimant is with regard to house sites of smaller extents, such sales cannot be compared for the purpose of determination of market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that the book values mentioned in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kodad cannot be the sole basis for determination of market value under the Land Acquisition Act, for the lands acquired.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have also perused the evidence on record. Before the trial Court, the claimant is examined as

¶12

PW-1. In his deposition, he clearly stated that the acquired land admeasuring 2 acres, is situated adjacent to the village and it is suitable for construction of houses for weaker sections and there is a Well to irrigate the acquired land and they used to cultivate the acquired land. It is also categorically stated that the acquired land is situated by the side of National Highway No.9 and is adjacent to the village site, as such, he sold 2 guntas of land in the year 1987 in the same survey number to one Veluri Subba Rao and Gunda China Bhadraiah at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per gunta, under Ex.A-1. The purchaser China Bhadraiah is examined as PW-2. PW-2, while stating that he has purchased the land at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per gunta, in the cross-examination, stated that he has constructed house in the land purchased by him. PW-3 is Sri Kandibanda Laxminarayana, whose father is the vendor under Ex.A-3, under which, 2 guntas of land was sold at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per gunta. A resident of Madharam is also examined as PW-4. In his deposition, it is stated that the acquired land is a patta land having good potentiality and is situated adjacent to village site of Madharam village and is adjacent to National Highway No.9 on its Southern side and the acquired land is suitable for house sites.

¶13

On behalf of respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet was examined as RW-1. In the crossexamination of RW-1, it is stated that the acquired land is

¶14

abutting the National Highway No.9 and there is a big agricultural well in the same survey number.

¶15

It is to be noticed that the sale deeds under Exs.A-1 and A-2 are about 9 years earlier to 4(1) notification. Having regard to the lengthy time gap, it is not possible to say that the said documents are concocted for claiming higher compensation. There is no reason to discard the documentary and oral evidence on record while fixing the market value for the lands in question. At the same time, it is to be kept in mind that the extents of land covered under Exs.A-1 to A-3 are small bits of land i.e. one gunta of land each under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and 2 guntas of land under Ex.A-3. The market value guidelines can be kept in mind while determining the compensation, but the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be solely based on the book values mentioned for the purpose of registration. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the land acquired was adjacent to National Highway No.9 and was being sold for house sites. As it is evident from the evidence of PW-2 that he is the purchaser under Ex.A-1 and he also constructed a house in the land purchased by him. It is settled law that the potentiality of land for future use also should be kept in mind while determining the compensation. In view of Exs.A-1 to A-3 which are proved through the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and also taking into account the book values reflected in

¶16

the office of Sub-Registrar under Ex.A-4 and taking the totality of evidence and circumstances, we accept Exs.A-1 and A-2 as the comparable sales and we are of the view that they are genuine sales that took place 9 years earlier to the date of 4(1) notification. As the sale deeds which are relied on by the claimants appears to be genuine, they can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation, but having regard to the fact that such sales are for small extents of land, by deducting 40% of the values reflected in such sale deeds, we deem it appropriate to fix the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre.

¶17

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the compensation fixed in the order dated 19.07.2001, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet in O.P.No.56 of 1997, is enhanced from Rs.26,600/- per acre to Rs.60,000/- per acre with all other Statutory benefits.

¶18

Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶20

__________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶21

29^th January 2014 ajr

K. Madan Mohan rao v. The State through La Officer / Rdo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Madan Mohan rao v. The State through La Officer / Rdo

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 State of Andhra PRadesh Vs Sri R.V. Ramana

B. Umamaheswari, Vs The Union of India

P. Annaji Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T. Pedda Pakkiraiah Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector / La Officer

P. Chinna Jambulaiah Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector / La Officer

Pichiguntla Nadipi Pullanna Vs The Special Deputy Collector/