IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
A.S. No.2046 of 1999
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Penukonda AND V.Narsimha Reddy and 5 others . APPELLANT . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
A.S. No.2046 of 1999
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)
The Land Acquisition Officer is the appellant. The respondents are the claimants. Their lands of an extent of 5.42 acres in Sy.No.111/1 and one acre in Sy.No.110 situated in Kutagulla village of Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapur District was acquired for the purpose of construction of the quarters to the staff of A.P.Electricity Board as well as for extension of the existing 132 KV sub-station of the said village. After completion of enquiry, Award No.7/86-87 was passed on 15.09.1986 awarding compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre.
2. On an application filed under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation as per the market value, the matter was referred to the Subordinate Judge, Kadiri vide O.P.No.5/1987. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,000/-to Rs.80,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed this appeal.
3. Initially Sec.4(1) Notification was published in A.P.Gazette Extraordinary dated 18.09.1981 for acquisition of the land of an extent of 6.42 acres in Sy.No.111 and one acre in Sy.No.110 of Kutagulla village, and notices under Sec.9(1) and 10 were also issued for taking possession and the same were published on 25.09.1982. After expiry of 15 days of the publication of the said notices, the Tahsildar, Kutugalla village was authorised to take possession of the said land. At that time, the Executive Engineer, TLC Division Kadapa reported that there are certain encroachments in Sy.No.111 and they should be removed. The Executive Engineer expressed that the encroachers cannot be removed and therefore, a revised acquisition after exclusion of one acre encroachment in Sy.No.111 was submitted. Accordingly, a revised acquisition to the extent of Ac.5.42 in Sy.No.111 and one acre in Sy.No.110 was made. Sy.No.111 was sub-divided as Sy.No.111/1 in respect of Ac.5.42 is concerned. Since there was reduction in the notified area, the proposals to amend the draft notification, draft declaration were sent to the Collector, vide proceedings of the Assistant Collector, Penukonda dated 14.11.1984 and the said proposal to amend the draft notification and declaration was approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.251 Energy Environment Science and Technology Pr.II Department dated 13.12.1985 and published in Ananthapur District Gazette part-1 Extraordinary issue dated 02.01.1986. After completion of the enquiry an award was passed on 15.09.1986.
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre, but whereas Reference Court erroneously relied on Exs.A2 and A3 and without considering Ex.A4, erroneously fixed the compensation @ Rs.80,000/- per acre. It is stated that Exs.A2 and A3 are subsequent to Sec.4(1) Notification dated 18.09.1981 and Ex.A4 is only prior to Sec.4(1) Notification and therefore, Ex.A4 Sale Deed alone is relevant for the purpose of fixing the market value.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that in fact notices under Sec.9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were served on the claimants on 02.01.1986 and therefore, the Reference Court rightly taken into consideration of Exs.A2 and A3 sale deeds which are prior to 02.01.1986. As per Ex.A1, admittedly the acquired land was located in the residential area of Kadiri Municipality. Under Ex.A2 an extent of 127 sq.yards was sold @ Rs.50/- per sq.yard and under Ex.A3 an extent of 251 sq.yards was sold @Rs.20/- per sq.yard. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the relevant date to be taken for the purpose of fixation of market value was 02.01.1986 on which date the amended notification was issued, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case S.Ramanjulu v. LAO[1]. In the case originally an extent of 61.46 acres was notified but on verification there was discrepancy with regard to Ac.2.13 and therefore, after excluding Ac.2.13, an errata notification was issued to an extent of 57.41 acres on 19.08.1981 and therefore, it was held that the date of subsequent notification alone is to be taken for fixing the market value.
6. The second claimant was examined as PW 1. He stated that the acquired land is surrounded by the Kadiri-Kadapa road, and Kadiri- Ananthapur road and on the southern side of the acquired land there are houses and on the northern side there is municipal pump at a distance of about one furlong. The electricity sub-station and the current pole manufacturing centre are adjoining the acquired land. Government Sericulture farm is about one furlong away from the acquired land. The Degree College is about one k.m from the acquired land. There is transport facility from the acquired lands towards Ananthapur, Kadapa and Kadiri. On the date of acquisition the cost of the land would be Rs.50/- per sq.yard. Except deposing orally that the market value of the land would be Rs.50/- per sq.yard, no other supporting document has been filed.
7. PW 2 is Building Overseer, Town Planning Section, Kadiri Municipality . He stated that as per Ex.A1 Gazette, which came into effect from 01.04.1983, the land in Sy.No.111 of Kutagulla village has been notified as residential area.
8. PW 3 is Senior Assistant in the District Sub-Registrar’s Office. He stated that according to valuation register of 1982 relating to Kutagulla village, the value of the land in Sy.No.111 of Kutagulla village was Rs.20/- per sq.yard. But the market value of the said land by the date of his examination i.e.by 15.06.1989 was Rs.66/- per sq.yard. In the cross examination he admitted that the value of the land in Sy.No.111 was originally noted as Rs.15/- and it was altered as Rs.20/- as per the Register of 1982. He also admitted that the so called present market value of Rs.66/- was not noted in the Register, but it was entered only during the year 1987-88.
9. PW 4 who is resident of Kutagulla village stated that he has purchased 2 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.111 @ Rs.50/- per sq.yard vide Ex.A2 registered sale deed dated 16.10.1985. He purchased 127 sq.yards for Rs.6,500/- which comes about Rs.50/- per sq.yard. He admitted in the cross examination that the land purchased by him was within the limits of Kutagalla village but whereas the land acquired by the Government was on the other side of the road and at that time there was no village and no houses were constructed near to the acquired land. Previously the dry crops were being raised in the acquired land. It is stated that the land purchased by him is having all facilities of water, telephone, electricity and it was situated in the 15th ward of Kadiri Municipality.
10. PW 5 is another purchaser of Ex.A4 sale deed dated 11.01.1980 for Rs.2,000/- in respect of 0.05 cents (231 sq.yards) which comes to Rs.8.65 ps per sq.yard. In the cross examination he admitted that the land that was acquired is only agricultural land.
11. PW 6 is another purchaser of Ex.A3 sale deed dated 22.12.1984 in respect of 0.05 cents (251 sq.yards) of house site purchased for a sum of Rs.6,000/- which comes to Rs.20/- per sq.yard. That is all the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of claimants.
12. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Superintendent of Sub-Collector’s Office, Penukonda was examined as RW 1. He stated that in fact the claimants filed representations on 09.10.1982 before the Sub-Collector giving their consent to part with their land provided they are paid @Rs.20/- per sq.yard, but no orders have been passed on the said representations. No doubt the Reference Court did not consider each and every document, but there is no dispute that as per Ex.A1 Gazette the land acquired was notified as residential area w.e.f.01.04.1983. In so far as Ex.A2 is concerned it relates to a small extent of 127 sq.yards which was sold for Rs.50/- per sq.yard.
Admittedly as per the evidence of the PW 4, the purchaser of the said land, that it is situated within the limits of the village site but whereas the land acquired was situated outside the road. The land purchased by him was in a developed area, but whereas the land acquired was not situated in a developed area and there were no houses constructed. However, as the sale transaction covered by Ex.A2 is 127 sq.yards, though the said document is prior to the amended notification dated 02.01.1986, we are of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the said document as it is a small bit of land. In so far as Ex.A3 is concerned, the land covered Ex.A3 was also an extent of 251 sq.yards only and the same was sold @ Rs.20/- per sq.yard. In so far as Ex.A4 is concerned, the sale transaction relates to 231 sq.yards and the same was sold @Rs. 8.65 ps per sq.yard, and therefore, Ex.A4 sale deed is of no avail at all to support the claim of the claimants. In so far as Ex.A2 is concerned, it being small extent of the land, we are not inclined to place any reliance. However, in so far as Ex.A3 is concerned, though it relates to a small extent of 251 sq.yards which was sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.yard, but the market value as on the amended date of notification dated 02.01.1986 has to be taken into consideration.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as there was escalation in the market value of the land and as Ex.A3 sale deed is two years prior to the date of notification, we are inclined to place reliance on the said document. If that be so, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court @ Rs.80,000/- per acre appears to be just and proper. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Reference Court.
14. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
V.ESWARAIAH,J NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 29.06.2010 Dsr
[1] (2000(5) ALT 493 (D.B)