Responding to a land acquisition appeal, the High Court upheld the reference court's fixation of compensation at Rs.20,000/- per acre, rejecting the State's argument that sales data from a different village was inadmissible.
The appeal filed by the State is dismissed, and the award fixing compensation at Rs.20,000/- per acre is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
L.A.A.S.No.121 of 2006
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Shankar Narayana)
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Srisailam Project, Kurnool, aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 29.09.1992 in O.P.No.5520 of 1991 (along with connected O.P.Nos.5514 to 5519 of 1991) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
2. The Government, through the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Srisailam Project, Kurnool, acquired an extent of Acs.4.04 cents of land belonging to the respondent/claimant, along with other extents belonging to other claimants, situated at Vellala Village, Nandikotkur Taluk, Kurnool District, for the purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project, by issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, published in the Gazette on 21.2.1974.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting due enquiry, passed Award No.28/75, dated 11.6.1975, fixing compensation at Rs.2,100/- per acre, as the extent acquired in this appeal falls under category-II(a). The respondents/claimants, having got aggrieved, requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the civil Court. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the
matter under Section 18(1) of the Act to the learned Subordinate Judge’s Court at Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, which was registered as O.P.No.5520 of 1991, along with connected O.P.Nos.5514 to 5519 of 1991. The reference Court has taken up all the seven O.Ps. together and disposed of by way of a common order dated 29.9.1992.
4. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.X.1 and X.2, which are registration extracts of sale deed dated 15.5.1973 and 28.8.1974, respectively, were marked to substantiate their claim. On behalf of the referring Officer, none was examined and no documents were filed.
5. The reference Court, on appraisal of evidence of R.W.2 – Sri K. Ranga Reddy, who purchased an extent of Ac.0.75 cents of dry land in Mutchumarri Village for a consideration of Rs.59/- per square yard, which works out to Rs.20,000/- per acre, accepted the document under Ex.X.2, believing it to be a genuine sale, and fixed the market value of the subject land at Rs.20,000/- per acre.
6. The Government, having got aggrieved of the enhancement in market value, has preferred the instant appeal contending in the grounds of appeal that the Land Acquisition Officer, having considered the sales statistics of 3 years preceding the date of Notification issued for acquisition of the subject land and having taken into consideration all other relevant factors, such as nature of the land, potentiality of the soil, etc., fixed market value at Rs.2,100/- and, therefore, the reference Court was not right in accepting and acting upon Ex.X.2 sale transaction, which land is located in a different
village. That has been the main ground, based on which, the instant appeal is preferred praying to set aside the award under challenge passed by the reference Court and confirm the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant-State. None appears for the respondentclaimant.
8. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals submits that except the present appeal against that portion of common order and decree dated 29.9.1992, which relates to O.P.No.5520 of 1991, as against the other connected six O.Ps., no appeals have been preferred by the State. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that the reference Court ought not to have relied on Ex.X.2, as the same relates to the sale transaction of land located in a different village i.e., Mutchumarri and not from Vellala Village.
9. Perused the order under challenge and the evidence let in by the claimants through R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.X.1 and X.2.
10. R.W.2 is the purchaser of land under Ex.X.2, extract of registered sale deed dated 28.8.1974, under which, he has purchased an extent of Ac.0.75 cents of dry land in Mutchumarri Village from one Ravindra Reddy for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. It has come up in the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3, that Mutchumarri and Vellala Villages are adjoining each other and having lands with similar potentiality and so far as the land covered by Ex.X.2 is concerned, according to the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3, the land covered by the said document and the acquired land are similar in nature
and potentiality. There is absolutely nothing in the crossexamination of R.Ws.1 to 3 to show that the land under acquisition and the land covered by Ex.X.2 are dis-similar in nature. We have also perused Ex.X.1, extract of registered sale deed dated 15.5.1973, under which an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of dry land in Mutchumarri Village was sold for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-, which is almost eight months prior to the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 21.2.1974 for acquisition of the subject land. Absolutely, there is nothing in the evidence of R.W.1 to 3 that Ex.X.1 was brought into existence for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. So, taking into consideration the value of land under Ex.X.1, we are of the view, that fixation of market value by the reference Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, the order under challenge does not call for any interference.
11. In view of the foregoing account, we confirm fixation of market value by the reference Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre for the acquired land. We find no merit in the instant appeal.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 13.11.2014. Msr
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
L.A.A.S.No.121 of 2006
13.11.2014
Msr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the reference court was right in enhancing market value based on sales in an adjoining village.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, SRISAILAM PROJECT, KURNOOL
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT
R.SUBHASH REDDY
A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
