Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 223 (AP)

Sub-Collector v. Jonnavithula Seetha Rama Laxmi

2020-03-11

BATTU DEVANAND, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) questioning the order dated 20.04.1989 in O.P.No. 143 of 1986 and batch passed by the Reference Court i.e. the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali. 2. The facts in issue disclose that the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired various extents of lands belonging to several claimants in different survey numbers including the land to an extent of Ac.0.15 2/3 cents which is the subject matter of the present appeal, situated in Chinaravuru village in R.S.No.136/2 for the purpose of providing house-sites to economically backward classes. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazettee, Guntur on 27.07.1981 for acquisition of the land in dispute and also other lands. It is stated that the land was taken possession by the Government on 09.05.1982. Taking into consideration the material available on record, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 15.03.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/-per acre and awarded compensation accordingly. Since the quantum of compensation was on the lower side, reference was sought by the claimants, and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer made reference to the Court of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Tenali under Section 18(2) of the Act on 29.03.1989. In support of their case, the claimants examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 while the Referring Officer got examined RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6 on behalf of the Government. Considering the material on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.15,000/-to Rs.1,50,000/-per acre with all statutory benefits as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the same, the Government preferred the present appeal. 3. A perusal of the record would show that the main dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation, as such, it is to be seen whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on higher side. 4. Before we deal with the transaction, it is to be noticed that though the Referring Officer clubbed together all the Original Petitions filed by the claimants, the present appeal arises out of the order dated 20.04.1989 in O.P.No. 143 of 1986. The claimant in O.P.No. 138 of 1986 was examined as PW1. 4. Before we deal with the transaction, it is to be noticed that though the Referring Officer clubbed together all the Original Petitions filed by the claimants, the present appeal arises out of the order dated 20.04.1989 in O.P.No. 143 of 1986. The claimant in O.P.No. 138 of 1986 was examined as PW1. She stated in her evidence that the claimant in O.P.No. 32 of 1987 is her brother and the claimants in O.P.Nos.136, 137, 139 and 142 of 1986 are her sisters while the claimant in O.P.No. 143 of 1986 (against which the present appeal is filed) is her mother. The lands acquired in respect of all the Original Petitions belong to her father – Duggirala Suryanarayana Murthy, who died intestate and they succeeded to the property as his legal heirs. It is not in dispute that the property is situated in Chinaravuru village within the municipal limits of Tenali and at a distance of two furlongs from Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali. The evidence of PW1 further shows that on the north and south of the acquired land, there were houses and adjacent to the west of the land, there is a road and to the west of that road, there are buildings and on the north of the land acquired, there is a road and to the north of this road, there are houses, house-sites and terraced buildings. It is stated that the lands are very fertile and the claimants used to raise paddy crop for Sarva black gram or green gram. It is stated that prior to the acquisition, the postal authorities entered into correspondence with the claimants for purchasing the lands for postal employees and also requested the Collector to acquire the land. A copy of the said letter marked to her father dated 07.09.1988 is Ex.A1 and another letter dated 20.06.1981 is Ex.A2. PW1 also deposed that they gave reply to the postal authorities that they were prepared to part with the land if the price is paid at Rs.100/-per square yard. Ex.A3 came to be marked through PW1 to show that a sale transaction took place on 16.10.1980, executed by Vasireddi Seetharamaiah to an extent of Ac.00.05 cents in R.S.No. 134 for a consideration of Rs.9,500/-which worked out to Rs.40/-per square yard. 5. The claimant in O.P.No. 32 of 1987 was examined as PW2, who is the brother of PW1. Ex.A3 came to be marked through PW1 to show that a sale transaction took place on 16.10.1980, executed by Vasireddi Seetharamaiah to an extent of Ac.00.05 cents in R.S.No. 134 for a consideration of Rs.9,500/-which worked out to Rs.40/-per square yard. 5. The claimant in O.P.No. 32 of 1987 was examined as PW2, who is the brother of PW1. His evidence toes in line with PW1. PW3 is the husband of the claimant in O.P.No. 145 of 1986. According to him, adjacent to the north of the land acquired, there is a tar road, which leads to the station and on the north of the road, there are houses and adjacent to the west of the acquired land, a Yanadi colony is situated and that there are houses on the southern side of the acquired land. Ex.A5 shows the market value of the land at Rs.45/-per square yard. 6. One Kalapa Sundararao was examined as PW4, who claims to know the vendee under the original of Ex.A3 and the said vendee purchased at the rate of Rs.40/-per square yard which was the then prevailing market price. The claimant in O.P.No. 31 of 1987 was examined as PW5 who also speaks about the value of the land existing then. RW1 came to be examined on behalf of the Government. 7. As seen from the record, the total extent of land in the instant case is only Ac.0.15 2/3 cents. It appears that the said land has great potential in view of the existence of houses adjacent to the land and also the existence of tar road. The material on record shows that the Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the transactions covered by sale items Nos.2 and 1 under Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 relates to sale item No.2 which is in R.S.No.169. The land in R.S.No. 169 is situated towards south of the land in R.S.Nos.136 and 152. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer relied upon sale item Nos.2 and 10 observing that the land covered under these sale items in R.S.No. 169 is situated near the lands acquired and is similar in nature. Sale item No.9 in R.S.No. 126/1 fetched a market value of Rs.71,580/-and sale item No.13 in R.S.No.122/3 fetched a market value of Rs.2,31,560/-, but strangely both these transactions were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer holding that they are not representative sales. 8. Sale item No.9 in R.S.No. 126/1 fetched a market value of Rs.71,580/-and sale item No.13 in R.S.No.122/3 fetched a market value of Rs.2,31,560/-, but strangely both these transactions were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer holding that they are not representative sales. 8. Further, the claimants relied upon the original of Ex.A3, dated 16.10.1980, under which, an extent of Ac.00.05 cents of land in R.S.No. 134 was sold for a consideration of Rs.9,500/-and the market value worked out to Rs.40/-per square yard. Having regard to the answers elicited in the evidence of PW1 with regard to the location and development in the said area and the letters written by the Postal Department to the respondents seeking the said land for establishment of a Postal Department, it becomes very clear that this land has great potential for development as a residential area. 9. Moreover, on 20.06.1981, the Superintendent of Postal Offices, Tenali, addressed a letter to the District Collector, Guntur, informing him that the Director of Postal Services, Eastern Region, Vijayawada accorded sanction for acquisition of land in question for the purpose of quarters for the employees of the Postal Department and requested him to make acquisition. These letters indicate that the original owner Suryanarayana Murthy wanted to part with the land at the rate mentioned in the basic value register. It is an admitted fact that the lands acquired are situated within the municipal limits of Tenali, in its extension area near Ramalingeswarapet. The village Chinaravuru became a part of Tenali Municipality long back. So it cannot be said that the lands have no potential value. In the cross-examination, RW1 stated that the road abutting on the north of the acquired land is having a width of thirty feet and is known as Jandhyalavari Street and one can directly go to the acquired land from this road. It is also in his evidence that the land acquired is nearer to Tenali Town than the lands covered under sale item No.10. Sale item Nos.2 and 10 are in R.S.No. 169. It is also his evidence that the land covered by the original of Ex.B1 is far away from the land acquired. 10. Further, the correspondence between the Postal Department and the claimants shows that the postal authorities were willing to take the land at the rate of Rs.100/-per square yard. Sale item Nos.2 and 10 are in R.S.No. 169. It is also his evidence that the land covered by the original of Ex.B1 is far away from the land acquired. 10. Further, the correspondence between the Postal Department and the claimants shows that the postal authorities were willing to take the land at the rate of Rs.100/-per square yard. As can be seen from Ex.A5 – Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar of Tenali with regard to the market value of the land, the land covered by T.S.No.142 is of the year 1987 was Rs.100/-per square yard, while the land covered by T.S.No. 142/1A also forms part of the acquired land. It is well established that the value fixed in the basic register would afford reasonable guidance in arriving at market value of the land acquired. Apart from that as observed earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land adjacent to the road on the north and very nearer to the road on west. It is also to be noted that the land covered under Ex.A6 was valued at Rs.40/-per square yard. 11. Considering these aspects, we feel that the Reference Court rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.15,000/-to Rs.1,50,000/-per acre apart from granting 30% solatium, interest at 12% p.a. on the enhanced market value from 27.07.1981, the date of notification to 09.05.1982, the date of possession of the land, and also interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from 09.05.1982 to 08.05.1983 and thereafter at 15% p.a. till realization. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the order of the Reference Court. No order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.