Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 234 (TS)

G. Laxminarayana v. State of Telangana

2022-03-16

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, M.LAXMAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : M. Laxman, J. 1. This common order disposes of all the appeals. 2. Some of the appeals are filed by the Government aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court, and other appeals are filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement, over and above the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court. 3. All these appeal arises out of common notification under which the lands were acquired. 4. For convenience, the appeals in LAAS.No.20 of 2016, which is filed by the Government, and LAAS.No.46 of 2018, which is filed by the claimants, are taken up for discussion of the evidence. 5. This order will dispose of other appeals also, since the acquisition is for common purpose under the same notification and the land is contiguous. 6. The present land along with other lands, was acquired for the purpose of establishing Devathalagutta Rifle Range for DMRL. The notification was issued on 06.07.2006 and the possession was taken on 02.04.2008. 7. The acquired land is situated in Sy.No.132, 133, 140 and 141 and these lands are forming part of Badangpet village of Saroornagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District. 8. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed the award fixing compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, relying on sale transaction relating to land in Sy.No.137 of the same village. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference. 9. The Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs.1,500/- per sq. yard and ordered deduction of 20% towards developmental charges. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed by the Government, and cross appeals by the claimants. 10. In one of the appeals i.e., LAAS.No.129 of 2015, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.400 per sq. yard and ordered deduction of 1/3rd, and LAAS.No.392 of 2014 is preferred by the claimants therein, seeking further enhancement on par with other land holders. 11. The Reference Court while fixing market value at Rs.1,500/- per sq. yard, has relied upon Ex.A-1, which is the sale transaction relating to Sy.No.180 to an extent of 222.22 sq. yards, which was sold for total consideration of Rs.5,40,000/-, and the amount per sq. yard comes to Rs.2,430/-. 12. 11. The Reference Court while fixing market value at Rs.1,500/- per sq. yard, has relied upon Ex.A-1, which is the sale transaction relating to Sy.No.180 to an extent of 222.22 sq. yards, which was sold for total consideration of Rs.5,40,000/-, and the amount per sq. yard comes to Rs.2,430/-. 12. While fixing the compensation, the Reference Court has noted that the evidence of R.W.1 shows that the land in Sy.No.180 is one or two kilometers away from the acquired land, and it also noted that the land, which is part of sale under Ex.A-1, is located in the village, which is a developed one, whereas the acquired lands are far away from the village, as such adopted the method of deduction, and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per sq. yard, and having fixed so, 20% was ordered to be deducted from such compensation towards developmental charges. 13. As seen from the Reference Court order, though the Reference Court has discarded Exs.A-3 and A-4, it is silent with regard to adverting to the sale transaction covered under Ex.A-2. 14. Ex.A-2 is relating to sale transaction of house plot bearing Nos.11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 to an extent of 275 sq. yards forming part of Sy.No.60 of Badangapet village of Saroornagar mandal, Rangareddy District and the sale consideration passed there-under was Rs.7,56,250/-, and the amount per sq. yard comes to Rs.2,750/-. 15. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Reference Court while relying upon Ex.A-1, has not properly fixed the compensation, and there is no reference of transaction relating to Ex.A-2, and according to him, Ex.A-2 shall be the basis for fixation of compensation, and he also submitted that the method adopted by the Reference Court in fixing the market value by placing reliance on Ex.A-1, is not in accordance with the principles of assessment of market value. 16. On the other hand the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General has contended that the Government have no grievance for fixation of market value at Rs.1,500/- per sq. yard, however, their grievance is that the Reference Court ordered meager deduction of 20% towards developmental charges, ignoring various factors, which are to be taken into consideration while deducing the developmental charges. yard, however, their grievance is that the Reference Court ordered meager deduction of 20% towards developmental charges, ignoring various factors, which are to be taken into consideration while deducing the developmental charges. According to him the developmental charges must not be less than 1/3rd, and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in KANTA DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA, (2008) 15 SCC 201 . 17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Reference Court while fixing the compensation, has not considered Ex.A-2 and there is also no discussion with regard to sale transaction made there-under. Even while fixing the compensation by placing reliance on Ex.A-1, the principles required to be taken into account were not correctly appreciated, and simply an observation has been made to the effect that 10% deduction has to be given, since the land covered under Ex.A-1 is located in the village, whereas the acquired lands are far away to the land under Ex.A-1. This method adopted by the Reference Court is not correct. 18. As seen from the award under Ex.B-1, the L.A.O. has discussed various transactions relating to various survey numbers, which are forming part of Badangpet village. The land under Ex.A-1 is covered under Sy.No.180, and land in Ex.A-2 is covered by Sy.No.60. The L.A.O. has discussed the location of various survey numbers in the village, in which the transactions took place, with reference to the acquired lands. 19. Sy.No.180 according to the L.A.O. is at a distance of 3 to 4 K.Ms., which is not rightly taken note of by the Reference Court, and evidence is also contrary to the findings in the award. The land in Sy.No.60, is also discussed by the L.A.O. As per his discussion, this land is one kilometer away to the acquired land. It is also admitted by him that the transaction covered under Ex.A-2 is also converted from agricultural to non-agriculture purposes, but however, without assigning any reasons, the Reference Court has discarded the same. Reference Court had absolutely paid no attention to Ex.A-2, which is more relevant, when compared to Ex.A-1; the reasons we find in the award itself. And further Ex.A-2 is covering the lands, which are already converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes, which gives some clue in determining the fair market value of the acquired land. 20. Reference Court had absolutely paid no attention to Ex.A-2, which is more relevant, when compared to Ex.A-1; the reasons we find in the award itself. And further Ex.A-2 is covering the lands, which are already converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes, which gives some clue in determining the fair market value of the acquired land. 20. The acquired land is covered by hillocks and some extent is adjacent to hillocks. The purpose of acquisition is for establishing Devathalagutta Rifle Range for DMRL, and in establishing Rifle Range, one of the criterions is that the authorities will choose only hillocks so that when firing is done, there must not be any human loss. 21. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanta Devi (1 supra) held as follows : “14. It was submitted that this Court had repeatedly held that in assessing the compensation payable in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which had potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd of the assessed value of the land is deducted depending on the nature of the land, its location, extent of expenditure involved for development, and the land required for roads and other civic amenities to make the land suitable for residential or commercial purposes. However, in the instant case, despite the location of the acquired land and its potential value, the compensation payable to the claimants was reduced drastically without proper reasons for such drastic deduction.” 22. As seen from the above judgment of the Apex Court, factors viz., nature of the land, its location, extent of expenditure required for development, and the land required for roads and other civil amenities to make the land suitable for residential or commercial purposes, have to be taken into consideration in ordering the deduction. 23. In the Reference Court order, absolutely no principle was adopted in giving deduction of 20% in one case, and 1/3rd in the other case. This anomaly is required to be corrected. 24. We are inclined to rely upon Ex.A-2 over Ex.A-1, for the reasons assigned herein before, and want to fix the market value. 25. By scrutiny of village map, we find that the acquired land are part of hillocks and some lands are immediate to the hillocks. When these lands are put to development, naturally it requires more expenditure, when compared to the plain land developed for residential or commercial purposes. 25. By scrutiny of village map, we find that the acquired land are part of hillocks and some lands are immediate to the hillocks. When these lands are put to development, naturally it requires more expenditure, when compared to the plain land developed for residential or commercial purposes. Therefore, we find that 45% deduction towards developmental charges will be proper. 26. Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed of fixing the market value at Rs.2,750/- per sq. yard in respect of the entire acquired land, giving deduction of 45% towards developmental charges, which comes to Rs.1,512.50, and rounded off to Rs.1,512/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,512/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred and twelve only) per sq. yards. The claimants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits. 27. Insofar as claimants in L.A.No.20 of 2016, it is stated that they have not preferred any cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 28. In this regard it is apt to refer to Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC, which reads as follows : “Order 41: Appeals from original decrees: Rule 33: Power of Court of appeal:--the Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decree in cross-suits or whether two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Section 35-A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such other.” As seen from the above provision, the appellate court has power to extend the benefit of the order in the appeal to the respondents, even though they have not preferred any appeal or cross-appeal. 29. 29. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a beneficial piece of legislation and claimants have already parted away their lands for public purpose and they shall not be denied just and fair compensation, when the same is fixed in respect of other land holders. 30. We feel that Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC can be exercised to place the claimants, who have not preferred any appeal in getting the compensation, on par with the other claimants, who have been granted compensation in their appeals by the present common order. 31. Therefore, all the claimants irrespective of their cross-appeal or appeal, are entitled for compensation fixed hereunder. However, they are liable to pay the differential court fee. 32. The differential amount shall be deposited by the L.A.O. within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 33. Accordingly all the appeals are disposed of as indicated above. 34. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.