Partly allowed

The Special Deputy Collector v. G. Rajaiah

Telangana HC6 Dec 2014LAAS/24/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerns compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court upheld the reference Court's fixed market value but held that statutory benefits for pre-notification possession are denied, though damages at 10% per annum are awarded for the period of illegal dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Damages at 10% per annum on compensation awarded for the period from 8.7.1983 to 10.2.1989 granted.

The Special Deputy Collector Vs G. Rajaiah — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

L.A.A.S.No.24 of 2007

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, S.R.S.P. LMD Colony, Karimnagar District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20.04.2006 in O.P.No.62 of 2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

¶5

2. An extent of Acs.9.31 guntas of land situated at Kalleda and Pachunur Villages of Manakondur Revenue Mandal of Karimnagar District, belonging to the respondents/claimants was acquired for the purpose of excavation of sub-distributory No.5 L of DEM-6 from KM.0.000 to 4.200. A draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) was published in A.P. Gazette on 10.2.1989. Advance possession of land was taken on 8.7.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has passed Award No.22/91-92, dated 16.7.1991, fixing market value for the subject land at Rs.6,500/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits.

¶6

3. Not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.62 of 2002 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

¶7

4. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the referring Officer, the Special Deputy Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, mainly placing reliance on Exs.A.4 and A.5, fixed market value for the subject land at Rs.34,000/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by such enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar has filed the instant appeal.

¶8

5. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that in the absence of any legal and acceptable evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the market value for the subject land at Rs.34,000/- per acre. It is further contended that in any event the possession of land was taken prior to the date of Notification and hence the respondents/claimants are not entitled for any statutory benefits for the period prior to the date of Notification.

¶9

6. On the other hand, Sri V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that when adjoining land was acquired for the very same purpose of sub-distributory canal, the reference Court under Exs.A.4 and A.5, certified copies of judgment and decree dated 18.6.2004 in O.P.No.66 of 2002, respectively, fixed market value for the said land at Rs.34,000/- per acre, which was confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.4.2009 in A.S.No.3822 of 2004. It is further submitted that the subject land is situated at a distance of 20 kms away from Karimnagar town and residential houses and commercial establishments have also come up in the vicinity of the acquired land and hence the compensation fixed by the reference Court for the subject land at Rs.34,000/- per acre is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶10

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material on record.

¶11

8. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the acquired land is situated in the limits of Kalleda and Pachunoor villages, which is a developed area. Further, P.W.1 who is claimant No.6, deposed that the subject land is situated at a distance of 20 kms away from Karimnagar town, where residential houses and commercial

¶12

establishments have also come up. It is also to be noticed that for the very same purpose of excavation of canal, when adjoining land was acquired, the reference Court under Exs.A.4 and A.5, fixed market value at Rs.34,000/per acre and while fixing the said market value, the reference Court relied on the very same documents under Exs.A.1 to A.3, copies of registered sale deeds dated 13.8.1985, which were marked in the said O.P. also. Further, the said market value was confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.4.2009 in A.S.No.3822 of 2004. It is also to be noticed that the Notification for acquisition of the land covered by Exs.A.4 and A.5 was issued on 16.9.1986, whereas the Notification for acquisition of the subject land was issued on 10.2.1989. In view of the time gap of about three years, fixation of market value for the subject land at Rs.34,000/- per acre is just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

¶13

9. At the same time, we find force in the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that since the subject land was taken possession prior to the date of Notification, the respondents/claimants are not entitled for statutory benefits on the compensation amount for the period prior to the date of Notification.

¶14

10. In the instant case, since possession of land

¶15

was taken on 8.7.1983 even prior to the draft Notification, which was published on 10.2.1989, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in R.L. JAIN (D) BY LRS. V.

¶16

DDA AND OTHERS^[1] and TAHERA KHOTOON AND OTHERS v. R.D.O. AND OTHERS^[2] , the respondents/claimants are not entitled for any statutory benefits on the compensation amount for the period prior to the issuance of Notification. However, in the said judgments, the Apex Court held that in a case where possession was taken earlier to the Notification, the land owners are entitled for rent/damages upto 15% per annum on the compensation awarded, from the date of their dispossession till the date of issuance of preliminary notification. In that view of the matter, since the respondents/claimants were illegally dispossessed from their lands as long back as on 8.7.1983 and thereby deprived of possession over the lands unauthorisedly much prior to the issuance of draft Notification, which was published on 10.2.1989, instead of directing them again for enquiry to ascertain the damages, we hold that the respondents/claimants are entitled for damages/rent at the rate of 10% per annum on the compensation of Rs.34,000/- per acre for the period from the date of taking possession to the date of Notification i.e., from 8.7.1983 to

¶17

10.2.1989.

¶18

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH

¶20

REDDY ___________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO 06.12.2014. Msr

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶22

L.A.A.S.No.24 of 2007

¶23

06.12.2014 Msr

¶24

[1] AIR 2004 SC 1904