Partly allowed

The Land Acquisition Officer, v. B. Bhadru

Telangana HC22 Sept 2022LAAS/207/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this land acquisition appeal in part by reducing the fixed market value from Rs.80,000 to Rs.45,000 per acre, relying on a prior judgment in a common batch case concerning identical land in Malyala Village.

What did the court decide?

Reduced market value from Rs.80,000 to Rs.45,000 per acre; respondents entitled to consequential benefits under the amended Act.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Vs B. Bhadru — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶7

LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 207 OF 2009

¶8

Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act^'1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2002 made in O.P.No.44 of 1999 on the file of the court of the Sen ior Civrl Judge, Mahabubabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, SRSP, Warangal.

¶11

...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER

¶12

AND

¶13

Banothu Bhadru, S/o Sakru, Rio Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Waranga l.

¶14

Banothu Veeranna, S/o Sasram R/o Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal.

¶15

lslavath Parthya, S/o Devla R/o Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Waranga l.

¶16

Banothu Parthya, S/o Chandru R/o Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. GP FOR APPEALS

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri J. Prabhakar ,i

¶20

The Court made the following: Judgment

¶21

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶24

L.A.A.S.No.2O7 of 2OO9

¶25

JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi)

¶26

This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act') by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the award and decree dated 16.04.2002 made in O.P.No.44 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. By the impugned award the L.A.O. hxed the market value at Rs.8O,00O/- per acre.

¶27

Heard Sri D.Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the material available on record.

¶28

The present acquisition was for the purpose of excavation of canal under DBM 48 SRSP. Various extents of land belonging to the claimants situated at Malyala Village, Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal District, were acquired by the Government for the said purpose by invoking urgency clause. While dealing with the identical matter in respect of Malyala Village, wherein the reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.8O,00O/- per acre, this Court in L.A.A.S.No.109 of 2006 and batch, by^judgment dated 12.04.2022, has fixed the market value of the acquired larld at Rs.45,O0O/- per acre.

¶29

¶30

\ I

¶31

Both the counsel have not disputed the facium of commonality of the issue in this appeal and in L.A.A.S.No.109 of 2006 and batch

¶32

Therefore, following the judgment passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No. 109 of 2OO6 and batch, dated 12.04 .2022 and for the reasons stated therein, the appeal stands allowed in part reducing the market value from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.45,OO0/- per acre. The claimants are entitled to all other consequentiai benefits as stipulated under the amended Act. No order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall s1an.l^.loscd

¶34

¶35

SD/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Gp SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Senior^{Civil Judge,Mahabubabad} ]/Va11qoa! 9Lo1-s^{with.a copy of the} j;U;;;i ditlidlZ.oq.ioii in LAAS No 10e of 2006 and^batch'

¶38

rwo CC to^{SRl. GPFORAPPEALS Advocate[OUT]}

¶39

One CC to^{SRl. J PrabhakarAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶40

Two CD^CoPies

¶41

One SPare^CoPY

\ M

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210912022

JUDGMENT⁺ DECREE

LAAS.No.207 ot 2009

1 HE STA Ig
Qr
?(
oo 1 7 FEB 2[23 ()
* Dg'Ser,tCSaD

¶49

,. PARTLY ALLOWING LAAS WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

.t\9----6'*"

¶51

¶52

HONURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶53

AND

¶54

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶55

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.1o9,163, L64,22L & 223 of 2006

¶56

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Si Justice P.Naueen Roo)

¶57

' Heard learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the appellants in all the appeals and Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in al1 the appeals.

¶58

All these appeals are preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) on behalf of the State challenging the order of the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') enhalcing the compensation payable to land owners to Rs.80,OOO/- as against the compensation determined by the LAO at Rs.20,0OO/- per acre.

¶59

¶60

All the respondents herein are the owners of respective extents of land in Malyala Village of erstwhile Warangal District. The land acquisition notifications were issued on various dates commencing frorn 28.O2.7997 to O8.O9.7998 covering respective extents of land in these appeals. The LAO awarded compensation ranging from Rs.20,0OO/- to Rs.22,000/-. On a reference under Section 18 of the

¶61

¶62

¶63

Act, the reference Court uniformly enhanced the compensation to Rs.8O,O0O/-.

¶64

Learned Government Pleader contends that no^{justification} is shown for enhancing the compensation by four times than what was determindd by the LAO- He submits that the LAO considered the transactions that took place in and around the lands acquired by the impugned la;rd acquisition proceedings and arrived at compensation payable between Rs.20,OOO/- to Rs.22,O0O/- in the respective lands and it was a reasonable compensation determined by him after due assessment of the status of land, other amenities available for proper cultivation of land, yield capacity of the land and proximity to the highway or residential accommodation etc.

¶65

¶66

Learned Government Pleader further submits that the reference Court has not appreciated the material available on record and based on the submissions ald conjectures enhanced the compensation. According to learned Governrnent Pleader there is no basis for the assessment arrived at by the reference Court to hold that the farmers were growing commercial crops ald were earning Rs.2O,OOO/- and above, more so, when the reference Court records that no evidence was available to show the amount of earnings by the farmers by growing commercial crops. He further submits that the reference Court also erred in considering the transaction on the

¶67

¶68

lands in other villages ignoring the transactions in the same village, as noticed by the LAO. The LAO considered 21 sale transactions undertaken in the years 1995 and 1996 and noticed that many of the transactions are on sma11 extents of land and far away from the lands acquired by the impugned notification.

¶69

¶70

Learnpd counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the refercnce Court has considered all aspects while holding that the farmers are entitled to higher compensation than what was determined by the LAO by pointing out the observaLions of the reference Court. He submits that the entire material would establish that the LAO has not considered proper sale transactions and erred in not appreciating the land va.1ue and mechanically decided the value of lands at Rs.20,0O0/- to Rs.22,000/-. In the absence of sale transactions in the same village, the reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale transactions undertaken in the neighbouring villages which are all contiguous having same nature of cultivation, the status of land and other amenities available to the farmers to arrive at just compensation. it is permissible for the reference Court to exercise discretion ald undertake guess work to determine right compensation palable to land losers. In the facts ofthese cases, the reference Court arrived at correct conclusion, duly taking note of the nature of iand, the commercial crops grown by the farmers,

¶71

¶72

proximity to Mahabubabad Town and other parameters and enhanced the compensation to Rs.8O,0O0/-.

¶73

7 . We have carefully considered the respective submissions and have gone through the record placed before us. While passing the Award, the LAO took note of 21 transactions on various extents of land in different survey numbers and he has discussed on each transaction separately. From a reading of the Award of the LAO, it appears that the ryots who have attended before him represented that prevailing price of dry lands in the village was ranging from Rs.4O,O0O/- to Rs.60,OOO/ per acre, and the ryots were habituated to sell lands by way of orai transaction. However, taking due note of the sale transactions undertaken in the village the LAO determined the compensation at Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,0O0/-.

¶74

¶75

To over rule this reasoning assigned by the LAO, the reference Court assumed that the farmers were growing commercial crops, but no evidence was led to show that the farmers were growing commercial crops and getting yield of Rs.20,0OO/-to Rs.25,O00/-. The reference Court proceeded to assess the sale transactions in the neighbouring villages and then holds that having regard to the sale transactions, nature of iald and commerciaL crops grown by the farmers, the farmers are entitled to higher compensation at Rs.80,000/-. It is no doubt true that the reference Court can resort

to guess work in a given situation based on the material available on record to arrive at^just compensation. It is also permissible to look into the sale transactions in the adjoining villages provided there are no sale transactions within the village- Further, it is always possible that the adjoining land can fetch more value than the lald in issue. It is also possible that the iald which is suitable for conversion to residential plots and for construction of residential houses fetch more value than the land meant for agricultural activiqr. Therefore, various parameters are required to be gone into before arriving at proper assessment of compensation payable.

¶80

9- The learned Judge was not doing the guess work but was probablizing the submissions made by the land owners based on assumption that the land owners were cultivating the lands by growing commercial crops a-nd getting good yield. The extensive discussion on the evidence is only with reference to possibility of the farmers resorting to growing commercial crops and getting good revenue and the sale transactions that were und.ertaken in ttre neighbouring villages. We are not persuaded to agree with the course adopted by the reference Court in enhancing the compensation to Rs.80,0OO/-.

¶81

¶82

That being so, with reference to the view expressed by the reference Court to enhance the compensation, we have also

¶83

¶84

¶85

considered the Award of the LAO on whether the compensation determined by him was a^just compensation and whether any evidence is available on record to hold that the farmers are entitled to 1itt1e more compensation than what was awarded by the LAO.

¶86

1 1. The LAO records the statements made by the ryots on the lalrd value ranging between Rs.4O,000/- to Rs.60,000/-, but he has not expressed his opinion on why said depositions were not valid. He straight away holds that market value of the lands under acquisition in Kalwa,la village was proposed at Rs.25,OOO/- per acre and therefore in Malyal village also it should be proposed at Rs.25,OO0/per acre. When the LAO was not disputing the statements made by the ryots that the land transactions are being carried out ranging between Rs.40,OO0/- to Rs.60,000/-, which cannot be said as an exorbitant c1aim, having regard to various other sale transactions carried over a period of time, we are of the opinion that the respondents in all these appeals are entitled to enhancement of compensation @ Rs.a5,000/- per acre which can be safely said as reasonable amount of enhancement.

¶87

¶88

Having regard to the above observations, the appeals are disposed of, modifying the order passed by the reference Court by holding that the respondents are entitled to compensation @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. The respondents are entitled to al1 other

¶89

¶90

¶91

statutory benehts as granted by the reference Court by treating the compensation payable at Rs.45,000/- per acre. The amount shall be paid to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU,J

l2th April, 2022

PLVlRds

tt,

[3281]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶100

THURSDAY ,THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶101

PRESENT

¶102

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶103

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G,PRIYADARSINI

¶104

LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 207 OF 2009

¶105

Between:

¶106

The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, SRSP, Warangal.

¶107

...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER

¶108

AND

¶109

Banothu Bhadru, S/o Sakru, R/o Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Wara ngal.

¶110

Banothu Veeranna, S/o Sasram R/o Malyala^(V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal.

¶111

lslavath Parthya, S/o Devla R/o Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal.

¶112

Banothu Parthya, S/o Chandru R/o Malyala (V) of Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal.

¶113

...CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶114

Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 against the Judgment and Decree OF THE Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad in O.P.No.44 of 1999, dated 16.04.2002.

¶115

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order and Decree of the Lower, Court and the Material papers in the case and upon hea;ing the arguments of G.P. for Appeals for the appellant and of Sri J. Prabhakar Advocate for Respondents.

¶116

This Court while following the Judgment dated 12.04.2022 in LAAS No.109 of 2006 and both Order and Decree as follows:

¶117

1. That the LAAS be and hereby is allowed in part reducing the market value from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.45,0001 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) per acre;

¶118