Partly allowed

Spl.Dy.Col. L.A. Hyd v. Barthelomeaandvincinza Educ.Soci Sec/Bad

Telangana HC30 Jan 2014CCCA/65/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed cross objections in a land acquisition reference concerning 3,750.61 square yards in Khairatabad. Rejecting the appellant's challenge, the court held that evidence of earlier sales augmented by the city's rapid development justified enhancing compensation to Rs.500 per square yard.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.350 to Rs.500 per square yard for the entire land acquired, with statutory benefits and interest.

Spl.Dy.Col. L.A. Hyd Vs Barthelomeaandvincinza Educ.Soci… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

C.C.C.A.No.65 OF 2002 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (Sr) No.35209 OF 2002

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 23.08.2000, passed in O.P.No.616 of 1989 by the learned First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.100/- to Rs.350/- per Square Yard.

¶5

The respondent - claimant filed cross objections claiming enhancement of compensation for the acquired land from Rs.350/- to Rs.1,000/- per Square Yard.

¶6

An extent of 3,750.61 Square Yards of land in T.S.No.1 (part), Block No.C, Ward No.11, corresponding to the old revenue Survey Nos.199 and 200 (part), of Khairatabad Village, was acquired for the purpose of doubling the railway line between Hyderabad and

¶7

Thelapur. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.12, dated 05.04.1988, and possession of land was also taken on the same day.

¶8

The Special Deputy Collector – cum - Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, after conducting enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, passed Award bearing No. J/2842/87, dated 17.08.1989, fixing the compensation at Rs.100/- per Square Yard for an extent of 2,500.41 Square Yards out of the total extent of 3,750.61 Square Yards, after giving 1/3^rd deduction of the area towards layout and wastage. The sole claimant received the aforesaid compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.616 of 1989 on the file of learned First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

¶10

Having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.100/- to Rs.350/- per Square

¶11

Yard for the entire acquired land, by recording a finding that as the acquired land is already developed, it is not permissible to deduct any area towards layout, wastage etc. In this regard, it has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality^[1] . Questioning the enhancement of compensation to Rs.350/- per Square Yard, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the present appeal and seeking further enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,000/- per Square Yard, the claimant has filed cross objections.

¶12

It is submitted by the Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for appellant that the reference Court without recording valid reasons and though no evidence is produced before it to show that the market value of the land acquired as on the date of notification was Rs.350/- per Square Yard, has enhanced the compensation. It is further submitted that inasmuch as the lands covered under Exs.A6 and A7 are on the main road and the land covered under Ex.A8 is attached to the existing property of A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, they cannot be taken as

¶13

basis to determine the market value for the land in question.

¶14

It is submitted by Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent – claimant, that as the land in question was in a prime developed area and was being used by the respondent - Society for running a College by name St. Francis College, there is no reason to restrict the compensation to Rs.350/- per Square Yard. It is further submitted that within the distance of 2 Kilometers from the acquired land, there was Air Port, Star Hotels etc. It is submitted that the land covered under Ex.A6 was notified by issuing

¶15

4 (1) notification on 15.10.1981 and the land covered under Ex.A8 was purchased on 24.11.1980, but the reference Court, without taking into consideration the time gap between the said documents and the notification in the present case, had erroneously restricted the claim to Rs.350/- per Square Yard. It is further submitted that the reference Court has also not considered the evidence on record, which indicates that the basic registration value at the relevant point of time, as maintained by the registering authorities under the Registration Act, 1908, for the land under acquisition, was Rs.706/- per Square Yard.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, we have perused the material available on record.

¶17

The Secretary of the respondent - claimant was examined as PW.1. In her deposition, she has stated that at the time of acquisition, the market value of the land was not less than Rs.1,000/- per Square Yard and the basic registration value of the lands in that area was Rs.706/per Square Yard. She has further stated that the land is situated in Kundanbagh Colony, where the Government has constructed bungalows for Ministers, I.A.S. Officers, Judges and other V.I.Ps. and within a furlong away from the acquired land, Hyderabad Public School is situated and Begumpet Air Port is hardly a Kilometer away. It is further stated that on the other side Raj Bhavan Road and Air Port are situated and Grand Kakateeya, a five star hotel, is hardly two furlongs from the acquired land. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that the land, which is covered under Ex.A6 is hardly one Kilometer from the land acquired. Though she was cross-examined, nothing adverse was elicited from her.

¶18

PW.2, who is one of the claimants under Ex.A6, has stated that the land covered under Ex.A6 and the acquired land are in the same Village of Khairathabad and

¶19

are centrally located and highly potential, as they are situated in the developed area. He has further stated that for the land covered under Ex.A6, initially, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded an amount of Rs.80/- per Square Yard, but on reference, the same was enhanced to Rs.350/- per Square Yard.

¶20

PW.3, who is an Executive Engineer in Civil Supplies Corporation, has stated that under Ex.A8, A.P. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, a Company held by Government, has purchased an extent of 733.60 Square Yards of land situated in Somajiguda, Khairatabad Revenue Village, at the rate of Rs.500/- per Square Yard by a registered sale deed, dated 21.11.1980. He has further stated that the distance between the property covered under Ex.A8 and Country Club is about 1 ½ Kilometers and adjoining the Country Club, there is a Railway Track leading to Begumpet Railway Station.

¶21

The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as RW.1. In his deposition, he has stated that the compensation was fixed by placing reliance on Ex.B2, which is about 2 ½ Kiometers away from the land acquired, as the land under Ex.B2 was nearer to the land acquired and there was no other comparable sale

¶22

transaction. But, at the same time, in the crossexamination he has stated that by the time of acquisition, Kundanbagh Colony was already developed and the acquired land is 3 Kilometers away from Hyderabad Public School and ½ Kilometer away from Panjagutta X Roads and 1 ½ Kilometers away from Begumpet Air Port. He has specifically agreed that St. Francis College is having all sorts of amenities like Electricity, Water Supply and all other modern facilities.

¶23

On considering the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the reference Court has taken Exs.A6 to A8 as guiding factors for the purpose of fixing the compensation. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that even at the time the land was notified for acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 05.04.1988, it was already developed having all facilities and is nearer to important places and is in the heart of the City. It is also to be noticed that PW.1, in categorical terms, in her deposition, has stated that during the relevant point of time, the book value, as maintained by the Registering authorities for the purpose of registration of documents under the Registration Act, was fixed at Rs.706/- per Square Yard. RW.1 himself has stated that the land covered under Ex.A8 is nearer to the land acquired than

¶24

the land covered under Ex.B3, which is situated in Anand Nagar Colony.

¶25

In that view of the matter, we are of the view that Ex.A8 can be taken as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the compensation. It is true that the land acquired under Ex.A8 was on the main road, but at the same time, it is not in dispute that even the land now acquired is well connected by road. It is also to be noticed that the land covered under Ex.A8 was purchased on 24.11.1980 and the land covered under Ex.A6 was notified for acquisition on 15.10.1981, which were about 8 years and 7 years, respectively, earlier to the present notification and there is no reason for accepting such evidence. Time and again, this Court and Apex Court have taken judicial note of increasing trend in prices for the lands, which are situated in developed areas and in fast growing cities. As the evidence on record clearly discloses that the land under acquisition is situated in the developed area and as it is a known fact that the city of Hyderabad is one of the fast growing cities in India, by taking note of increasing trend in prices and further considering the time gap between Ex.A6 and A8, and the present notification, we are of the view that reasonable compensation of Rs.500/- per Square Yard can be fixed for the entire land acquired. It is

¶26

needless to observe that the respondent – claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits, including interest on solatium.

¶27

For the aforesaid reasons, the C.C.C.A. filed by the State is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the respondent – claimant are allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.350/- per Square Yard to Rs.500/per Square Yard for the entire land acquired with all statutory benefits, including interest on solatium. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶28

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶29

JUSTICE A. SHANKAR

¶30

NARAYANA

¶31

30^th January, 2014 MD

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶34

C.C.C.A.No.65 OF 2002 AND

¶35

CROSS OBJECTIONS (Sr) No.35209 OF 2002

¶36

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

¶37

30^th January, 2014

¶38

¶39

[1] AIR 1992 SC 2298

Spl.Dy.Col. L.A. Hyd v. Barthelomeaandvincinza Educ.Soci Sec/Bad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Spl.Dy.Col. L.A. Hyd v. Barthelomeaandvincinza Educ.Soci Sec/Bad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Tahsildar (L.a.O.)/ Vs Dhulipala Kamalamma

P.Venkatramaiah and 4 Ors. Vs L.A.O. Krishna and Anr.

The Land Acquisition Officer/ Vs Vanam Venkatrama Prasad