THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Dt. 21.01.2014
A.S. No. 552 of 2002
Between:
The Special Deputy Collector (LAO) SLBC, Nalgonda.
And Veerlapati Narayana & Others.
… Appellant …. Respondents/Claimants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
A.S. No.552 of 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The Government acquired fairly large extent of land in various survey numbers of different villages in Nalgonda district for the purpose of excavating the Srisailam Left Bank Canal (SLBC). An extent of Ac.15-04 guntas dry land and Ac.5-37 guntas of wet land, owned by the respondents in different survey numbers of Aitipamula village, Kattangoor mandal, Nalgonda distgrict, was notified under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 04.05.1994. The appellant passed an Award on 15.12.1995 fixing the market value for the dry lands at Rs.12,000/- per acre and for wet lands at Rs.13,500/- per acre. On a request made by the respondents, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sec.18 of the Act. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda took the reference as O.P.No.33 of 1996. Through its order dt. 21.11.1996, the trial Court enhanced the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.22,000/- per acre for wet lands. The said order and decree passed by the trial Court are challenged in this appeal.
2. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals submits that once the trial Court expressed the view that Exs.A-1 and A-3, the only documentary evidence adduced by the respondents cannot be relied upon, there was no basis for ordering the enhancement to such an extent. He contends that having discarded Exs.A-1 to A-3, the trial Court did not indicate any basis for enhancing the market value for the acquired lands.
3. None appears for the respondents.
4. The only point framed by the trial Court was as to whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the market value to the acquired land over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. On behalf of the respondents, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were filed. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the appellant. The nature of relief granted by the trial Court was already indicated.
6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the enhancement ordered by the trial Court can be unsustainable in law or on facts.
7. The appellant passed the award on 15.12.1995 fixing the market value at Rs.12,000/- and Rs.13,500/- for dry and wet lands respectively. As in the case of any award, reliance was placed upon the sale transactions in respect of lands that are comparable to the acquired lands. Before the trial Court, the respondents submitted their claims seeking almost at Rs.50,000/- per acre. They placed reliance on Exs.A-1 to A-3. These three documents evidence the transactions that took place in the months of February, March and January 1994 respectively. The vendors therein were examined as witnesses. The trial Court assigned two reasons for discarding these documents. The first is their proximity to the date of notification and the second is that the persons, who purchased the lands under these documents, were not examined. Though the first reason assigned by the trial Court can be accepted to a considerable extent, the second reason cannot be sustained in law, if one takes into account Section 51-A of the Act. Further, there is nothing in law, which insists that the purchasers under the document must be examined to prove the sale consideration mentioned therein. As the law stands now, it is not necessary to examine anyone relating to the document, if a certified copy of a registered sale deed is filed. Added to that, the respondents have examined the vendors in the sale deeds.
8. The trial Court took note of the fact that the acquired land is nearby the National Highway and is surrounded by the structures, such as rice mills and buildings. Added to that, the sale consideration mentioned in Exs.A-1 to A-3 is in the range of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Though it is possible to argue that the said documents may have been brought into existence anticipating the acquisition, unless necessary suggestions are made in this behalf in the examination of the witnesses concerned, there does not exists the presumption in that behalf. The mere fact that the proceedings to acquire any land are initiated, the citizens cannot be expected to freeze the entire activity.
9. The consideration mentioned in Exs.A-1 to A-3 is in the range of Rs.50,000/- per acre. What was fixed by the trial Court was not even half of it. Though no specific document was referred to, the relevant factor such as the developments in the surrounding area were taken into account. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.
10. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand disposed of accordingly.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J M.S.K. JAISWAL,J Dt. 21..01..2014
Kv/Smr
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
A.S. No. 552 of 2002
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Kv/Smr
21..01..2014