Partly allowed

Hajahshariff Mohammad v. Special Deputy Collector, L.a.Ongc., Rajahmundry

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014LAAS/749/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of two appeals challenging an award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the reference Court erroneously rejected evidence of small land sales. It directed compensation enhancement using a comparable sale rate with a 60% deduction.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is enhanced from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 4,06,560 per acre based on a sale deed rate with a 60% deduction.

Hajahshariff Mohammad Vs Special Deputy Collector… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

L.A.A.S.Nos.749 and 439 of 2005

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

These appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 31.08.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999 by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶5

2. Totally, an extent of Ac.5.71 cents of land covered by Sy.Nos.155, 168, 169 and 170, situated in Amalapuram town, East Godavari District, belonging to the appellants-claimants and some others, was acquired under the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of bypass road from S. Yanam to Amalapuram. Out of the said extent, Ac.0.36 cents belongs to the appellant in L.A.A.S.No.749 of 2005 and an extent of Ac.0.43 cents belongs to the appellant in L.A.A.S.No.439 of 2005. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed Award No.3/98-99 on 11.02.1999, fixing compensation for the acquired lands at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, appellants-claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and their claims

¶6

were referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.94 of 1999.

¶7

3. Before the reference Court, there were 14 claimants altogether. Claimants 4 and 7 are the appellants in these appeals. On behalf of the appellants-claimants, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The reference court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and while recording a finding that the appellantsclaimants failed to prove their case for enhancement of compensation, dismissed the Original Petition. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed.

¶8

4. Heard Sri VLNGK Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondents.

¶9

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, that though the lands acquired were fit for being used as house-sites, compensation is fixed on acerage basis. It is submitted that, during the relevant time, the lands were being sold at Rs.850/- per sq. yard and in spite of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the reference Court discarded the evidence, without assigning any reasons and rejected the claim of the appellants. It is further contended that, in the very same acquisition, land belonging to claimant No.8, which

¶10

is situated in the layout approved by Amalapuram Municipality, is covered and in the vicinity, all the lands are developed into house-sites, as such, appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation at least at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. yard, as restricted to by them in these appeals. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh (dead) through

¶11

. LRs., and others v. State of Haryana and anothe r^[1]

¶12

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the respondents, that the lands acquired are for the purpose of bypass road from S. Yanam to Amalapuram village, as such, appellants-claimants are not entitled for compensation on yardage basis. It is further submitted that the total acquired land is Ac.5.17 cents and before the reference Court, appellants-claimants have not filed any documentary evidence, worth acceptance and the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable.

¶13

7. At the outset, it is to be noted that, claimant No.4 has filed counter before the reference Court stating that the award, granting compensation for Ac.0.36 cents at Rs.1,24,716/- is not just and reasonable. It is stated that the property abuts the road, which is already in existence and the same is a valuable property and even as per the

¶14

basic value register, market value of the same was at Rs.850/- per sq. yard at that time. It is specifically pleaded that there are house-sites in the vicinity of the land acquired. It is also pleaded that the Land Acquisition Officer has not given any valid reasons for rejecting various sale deeds, which are comparative sales, for the purpose of determining compensation. Claimant No.7 has filed separate counter. In the counter filed by him, while stating that the Land Acquisition Officer totally ignored the fact that the lands acquired are suitable for house-sites, he referred to the sale deed dated 14.12.1993 to consider the same as comparative sale for the purpose of determining compensation for the lands acquired.

¶15

8. From a perusal of the impugned judgment of the reference Court, it is clear that the reference Court did not consider the relevant aspects which are required to be considered, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. It has not taken into consideration oral and documentary evidence mainly on the ground that appellants-claimants failed to file their objections, after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, by way of claims before the Land Acquisition Officer within the time prescribed. The reference Court has lost sight of the vital aspect, viz., whether appellants-claimants have adduced any oral and documentary evidence, to consider their claims for enhancement of compensation over and above the

¶16

compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has also not considered the sale deeds filed by the appellants-claimants pertaining to small extents of land on the ground that they relate to small extents of land, in comparison to the total extent of land acquired, i.e. Ac.5.17 cents.

¶17

9. For the purpose of proving the market value as on the date of notification, on behalf of appellants-claimants, certified copies of registered sale deeds, viz., Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.10 to A.14 were filed. It is to be noted that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 12.03.1998, whereas most of the documents/sale deeds exhibited on behalf of the claimants pertain to the year 1982. Ex.A.10 is a sale deed which is subsequent to the date of notification, as such, the same cannot be considered as a comparative sale for the purpose of determining compensation. Ex.A.13 is a copy of sale deed dated 28.07.1990, which is nearly 8 years earlier to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The sale deed which is nearest in point to the date of notification is Ex.A.14 which is dated 31.03.1995. Ex.A.13 is the sale deed of the year 1990 under which Ac.0.04 cents of land was sold at the rate of Rs.139/- per sq. yard. Similarly, Ex.A.14 is a document which shows that in the vicinity of land under acquisition, land admeasuring 240 sq. yards was sold at the rate of Rs.210/- per sq. yard. The reference Court has discarded even these sale

¶18

deeds on the ground that they pertain to small extents and they are bit sales, as such, they cannot be considered as comparable sales, to fix the compensation. It is relevant at this stage to note that when large extents of land are acquired, if sale data pertaining to large extents is not available, even sale deeds pertaining to small extents can be considered by giving suitable deduction. If large tract of land is to be divided into plots by preparing layout, substantial portion of the same is to be left for the purpose of development towards roads, parks and also for laying water and sewerage lines, etc. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that, in the lands adjoining the lands under acquisition, new layouts have come up and plots were being sold for the purpose of house-sites. Hence, the claim of the appellantsclaimants cannot be rejected only on the ground that sale deeds pertaining to large extents were not filed by them.

¶19

10. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that Ex.A.14 can be taken as a comparable sale for the purpose of determining compensation for the lands acquired, by giving suitable deduction. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma Singh (cited above) as relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants would support the case of the appellants, wherein the Supreme Court has upheld determination of market value of large

¶20

tracts of lands based on exemplars of small pieces of land, by giving suitable deduction. As much as the land under Ex.A.14 pertains to small extent, i.e. 240 sq. yards, further the lands acquired are undeveloped and the same are acquired for the purpose of bypass road, we deem it appropriate to give composite deduction of 60% from the rate as reflected in Ex.A.14 and take the same as basis for fixing compensation for the lands acquired. As the land under Ex.A.14 is sold at Rs.210/- per sq. yard, after deducting 60% thereof, compensation can be fixed at the rate of Rs.84/- per sq. yard for the lands acquired, which works out to Rs.4,06,560/- per acre. Accordingly, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as confirmed by the reference Court at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,06,560/- per acre. It is needless to observe that appellants-claimants are entitled for all statutory benefits, including interest on solatium.

¶21

11. The appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶23

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶24

September, 2014 MRR

¶25

[1] (2008) 2 SCC 568

Hajahshariff Mohammad v. Special Deputy Collector, L.a.Ongc., Rajahmundry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajahshariff Mohammad v. Special Deputy Collector, L.a.Ongc., Rajahmundry

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

S.Kiran, Vs The Government of Telangana

K. Narsimha Reddy, Vs Union of India

D.V.S.S.R Patnaik Vs Union of India

T. Madan Mohan Reddy, Vs Sri B.R. Meena, I.A.S.

Syed Abdul Hameed Vs Mohammed Khaleel

Medishetty Rajyalaxmi E.G. Dist. Vs Prl. Secy. Rev. Dept. and 5 Ors.