Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 873 (AP)

K. Ramachandru v. LAO, Spl. Dy. Collector, SLBC

2013-10-09

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2013
Judgment Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimants/land owners under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’), impugning the order dated 25.07.1996 in O.P.No.67 of 1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, who has, in fact, affirmed the award dated 15.02.1990, determining the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.7,000/- per acre. 2. The facts in brief are that, the Government has acquired an extent of Acs.47-37 gts, but recognising only an extent of Acs.28-03 gts as fertile land, in village Narsingbatla of Nalgonda Mandal, for the public purpose of formation of S.L.B.C. flank quarry. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 02.06.1989, notifying the intention of the Government to acquire the land, followed up by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, as well as the other statutory formalities. The Land Acquisition Officer, through his award dated 15.02.1990 in O.P.No.6 of 1989-90, determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.7,000/- per acre. 3. Aggrieved by the supposed inadequacy of the market value of the land under acquisition, the land owners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking a reference to the civil court. On such reference, the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Nalgonda, through its order dated 25.07.1996 in O.P.No.67 of 1990, confirmed the award dated 15.02.1990 of the Land Acquisition Officer, thereby refusing to enhance the market value of the lands in question. 4. Assailing the order dated 25.07.1996 in O.P.No.67 of 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Nalgonda, the land owners filed the above appeal under Section 54 of the Act. 5. Before adverting to the merits of the case by appreciating the rival contentions, it is pertinent to place on record that after filing of the present appeal, the appellants have filed an application in A.S.M.P.No.8320 of 2004 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., seeking the leave of this Court to place on record additional evidence in the form of copy of the order dated 21.07.1993 in O.P.No.6 of 1988. It is axiomatic that any additional evidence can be looked into, only at the time of disposal of the main appeal, for the purposes enumerated under Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC., which is as follows: "Product of additional evidence in Appellate Court. It is axiomatic that any additional evidence can be looked into, only at the time of disposal of the main appeal, for the purposes enumerated under Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC., which is as follows: "Product of additional evidence in Appellate Court. – (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But it: (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. " 6. The learned counsel for the landowners has contended that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence on the part of the land owners, they could not procure a copy of the order in O.P.No.6 of 1988 as it was not within their knowledge at the time when a reference was made to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. It is to be further appreciated that appellate court can take on record the additional evidence, if the court feels that it is required to enable it to pronounce a judgment or for any other substantial cause to sub-serve the ends of justice. 7. A perusal of the award in O.P.No.6 of 1988 dated 21.07.1993 reveals that the lands in the said O.P. were also acquired from the same village through a notification by initially issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act on 05.02.1987. The reference court in that case has awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/-per acre as being the market value. A perusal of the award in O.P.No.6 of 1988 dated 21.07.1993 reveals that the lands in the said O.P. were also acquired from the same village through a notification by initially issuing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act on 05.02.1987. The reference court in that case has awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/-per acre as being the market value. Since the notification was issued in the present instance on 02.06.1989, i.e., two years four months subsequent to the notification in O.P.No.6 of 1988, and as the lands acquired in both the cases are situated in the same village, it serves the ends of justice if the said evidence is taken on record. Any award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the reference court, once it attains finality, amounts to an admission on the part of the State as to the market value of the lands under acquisition. Accordingly, reliance can safely be placed on the order in O.P.No.6 of 1988, which is a public document, produced by the land owners during the course of appeal, though. 8. Adverting to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the land owners has contended that the reference court has mechanically affirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer without considering the evidence of the claimants. He has further contended that though the respondent-State has not led any evidence before the reference court, the reference court has still refused to place any reliance on the evidence of the claimants, even in the absence of any rebuttal. In the end, referring to the additional evidence i.e., the order dated 21.07.1993 in O.P.No.6 of 1988, the learned counsel for the land owners has submitted that by taking into account the order in O.P.No.6 of 1988, this Court may revise the market value by giving due consideration to the annual appreciation from the date of acquisition in O.P.No.6 of 1988, lest the land owners should suffer immeasurably having already lost the source of their sustenance. 9. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has strenuously defended the award dated 15.02.1990 in O.P.No.6 of 1989-90, as confirmed by the reference court through its order dated 25.07.1996. He has further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has undertaken a very elaborate exercise of determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. 9. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has strenuously defended the award dated 15.02.1990 in O.P.No.6 of 1989-90, as confirmed by the reference court through its order dated 25.07.1996. He has further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has undertaken a very elaborate exercise of determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. The reference court has rightly refused to interfere with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, as there were no infirmities either on fact or in law. The additional evidence produced by the land owners, it is contended, is a belated effort on the landowners’ part to improve their case. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has stressed that the said piece of evidence cannot be taken into account. 10. Heard the respective counsel for the appellants and the respondent, apart from perusing the record. 11. Succinctly stated, once the additional evidence is taken on record for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it is to be treated as if the said piece of evidence had been on record since the beginning; it, in fact, forms an integral part of the record. Ipso facto, appreciating the facts in the said award, it may be stated that the lands situated in the same village were acquired by issuing a notification on 02.06.1989, and the acquisition was for the same purpose. The reference court in O.P.No.6 of 1988 determined the value of the land at Rs.8,000/- per acre. Taking into account the period of two years four months that has lapsed since the date of the initial notification said O.P. up to the point of the notification in the present acquisition, annual appreciation at 10% can safely be allowed. By reckoning the said appreciation, the market value of the lands under acquisition can be determined at Rs.11,000/- per acre. Given the potentiality and the proximity of the lands under both acquisitions, it is eminently acceptable that awarding an amount of Rs.11,000/- per acre for the lands under acquisition is very much justified. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeal of the land owners is allowed by fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.11,000/- per acre. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeal of the land owners is allowed by fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.11,000/- per acre. It is also made clear that in the light of the re-determination of the market value of the lands, the appellants/land owners are entitled to all the consequential statutory benefits as are available under the Act of 1894. No costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.