Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 398 (AP)

Land Acquisition Officer v. Bantu Chinna Veeramma

2014-03-12

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
Judgment (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short ‘the Board’) intended to bring about a Colony in Nizamabad Town. An extent of Acs.67.00 of land, owned by the respondents, in various survey numbers of Kanteshwar Revenue Village abutting Nizamabad city was identified for that purpose. On the requisition made by the Board, the Government published notification, dated 24.10.1989, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the land, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published and advance possession was taken on 23.01.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant herein, passed an award on 16.12.1991 fixing the market value at Rs.1,38,000/- per acre. A sum of Rs.29,964/- was awarded as compensation for the wells that were existing in the land. Not satisfied with the award passed by the appellant, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant acceded to the request and referred the matter to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and it was taken up as O.P.No.17 of 1997. Through its order, dated 27.04.2006, the trial Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.188/- per square yard. The same is challenged by the appellant in LAAS No.126 of 2007. The respondents herein, on the other hand, filed Cross-Objections (SR) No.10996 of 2008 for enhancement of the market value to Rs.268/- per square yard. 2. Learned Advocate General for the appellant submits that the enhancement ordered by the trial Court is totally out of proportion and without any basis. He contends that as against Rs.1,38,000/- per acre awarded by the appellant, the trial Court fixed the market value at Rs.9,09,920/- per acre. He submits that the basis for the trial Court to enhance the market value is Exs.A1 and A2, and both the sale deeds came into existence in anticipation of the acquisition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Kanteshwar is a locality which became part of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation by the time the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published and that there was no basis for the appellant to fix the market value at Rs.1,38,000/- per acre. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Kanteshwar is a locality which became part of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation by the time the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published and that there was no basis for the appellant to fix the market value at Rs.1,38,000/- per acre. He contends that even from a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it is evident that the appellant himself submitted proposals indicating the market value at Rs.3,87,200/- per acre, whereas it was slashed down to Rs.1,38,000/- by the District Collector. He submits that the market value as per Exs.A1 and A2 works out to Rs.400/-per square yard and the deduction to the extent of 53% was made by the trial Court. He contends that in the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanath Kumar Vs. Special Tahsildar (2012 (4) ALD 171 (SC) held that deduction cannot exceed 40% under any circumstances and in that view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and the Cross-Objections deserve to be ordered. 4. The background of the acquisition in brief, has been furnished in the preceding paragraph. In the award passed by him, the appellant fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.1,38,000/-per acre. 5. On reference having been made to it, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 have locus standi to contest the claim petition and without filing their respective counters? 2. Whether respondent No.2/APHB has caused damages to the claimants and liable to pay damages to them? If so, at what rate? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and consequential benefits thereon under the amended LA Act and if so at what rate? 6. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were filed. 7. The trial Court took the view that the market value reflected in Exs.A1 and A2 works out to Rs.400/- per square yard and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LAO, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P., Vs. On behalf of the appellant, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were filed. 7. The trial Court took the view that the market value reflected in Exs.A1 and A2 works out to Rs.400/- per square yard and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LAO, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P., Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others (2004 (1) LACC 242 (SC), deduction to the extent of 53% was made and the market value was enhanced to Rs.188/- per square yard. 8. The land acquired from the respondents is no doubt very large in extent, being Acs.67.00 and the value reflected in the sale deeds covering small plots of land cannot at all be adopted for such a large extent. Necessary deductions are required to be made. 9. Two aspects assume significance in this regard. The first is about the extent of the land which is acquired, its location and the purpose for which it is acquired compared to the one that is covered by the sale deed. The second aspect is about the timing at which the comparable sales, evidenced by the sale deeds marked as exhibits, have come into existence. 10. The extents covered by Exs.A1 and A2 are relatively small and the value mentioned in those documents works out to Rs.400/- per square yard. It cannot at all be adopted as it is, when large extent of Acs.67.00 of land is acquired. Normally, deduction to the extent of one-third is made for providing roads, open places and other amenities. That would account for the first aspect. However, this case presents another typical feature that warrants further deduction. 11. A comparable sale is the one, which can be said to have come into existence in the ordinary course of events at the relevant point of time. If the Court gains an impression that the comparable sales are brought into existence in anticipation of the acquisition, it is not at all safe to adopt the consideration mentioned therein, as basis. 12. In the instant case, the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is 24.10.1989, whereas the date of Ex.A1 is 02.09.1998. Before a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act comes to be published in the Gazette, fairly long preparatory exercise in the form of submission of proposals, measurement of land, etc., takes place. 12. In the instant case, the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is 24.10.1989, whereas the date of Ex.A1 is 02.09.1998. Before a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act comes to be published in the Gazette, fairly long preparatory exercise in the form of submission of proposals, measurement of land, etc., takes place. If these aspects are taken into account, it emerges that the sales covered by Exs.A1 and A2 are not free from the factor of anticipation of the acquisition. The trial Court took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nookala Rajamallu’s case (two supra) and accordingly effected deduction of 53%. 13. Had the same legal position continued, we would not have interfered with the order of the trial Court. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanath Kumar’s case (one supra), dealt with a similar phenomenon. In the case before it, deduction to the extent of 53% was made by the trial Court, on the ground that the acquired area is vast in extent. It was held that such an approach is improper and deduction was restricted to 40%. However, if we take into account the proximity of the sale deeds to the date of the acquisition in the case on hand, deduction to the extent of 48% would be justified. Added to that, the respondents are quite large in number and the extent held by them was very small. If the matter is viewed from the point of view of individual owner, such a course would certainly become justified. 14. We therefore, dismiss L.A.A.S.No.126 of 2007 and partly allow the Cross-Objections (SR) No.10996 of 2008 fixing the market value for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.208/- per square yard. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall be entitled to statutory benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the appeal shall also stand disposed of.