Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1149 (TS)

Special Dy. Collector v. P. Pulla Reddy

2025-10-06

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2002 passed in O.P. No. 15 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”). 2. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired lands, thereby giving rise to the present appeal at the instance of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, Huzurabad, Karminagar District. I . BRIEF FACTS 3. The Land to an extent of Ac.11-33 gts. of Bethigal, Pothireddypet, and Metpalli villages of Keshava Patnam and Veenavanka Mandals were acquired for the purpose of canal excavation. II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD: 4. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 24.12.1984 and after publication, notices under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, along with an award enquiry was conducted. 5. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 30.04.1988, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 15 of 1997 before the Reference Court. III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE REFERENCE COURT 6. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following issues for determination: (i) Whether there are reasonable grounds that enhancing the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the acquired lands? (ii) To what relief? IV. EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 7. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A3, which comprised exemplar sale deeds and certified copies of earlier awards pertaining to adjacent lands. 8. On behalf of the respondent-State, none was examined and Exhibit B-1 was marked. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the L.A.O. had relied upon a single sale deed dated 19.01.1983 relating to Sy.No.536/B of Bethigal village, to determine the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. 8. On behalf of the respondent-State, none was examined and Exhibit B-1 was marked. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the L.A.O. had relied upon a single sale deed dated 19.01.1983 relating to Sy.No.536/B of Bethigal village, to determine the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. However, the said document was never produced before the Court, nor were the parties to it examined, thereby depriving the Court of an opportunity to verify whether the lands covered under it were comparable in nature, fertility, and location to the acquired lands. 10. On the other hand, the claimants adduced cogent oral and documentary evidence. They examined PWs.1 to 4 and produced Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 reflected a sale where the land was valued at Rs.80,000/- per acre, while Ex.A2 reflected at Rs.60,000/- per acre, and Ex.A3, on the other hand, was a judgment rendered in O.P.No.74/1996, wherein the reference Court had already enhanced the compensation for lands situated in Bethigal village from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.35,000/- per acre. The witnesses further established that the acquired lands were fertile, irrigated, and commercially productive, whereas the lands under the sale deed relied on by the L.A.O. were rocky and barren. 11. The Reference Court further noted that though Ex. A1 was executed in 1985, three years after the acquisition on 01.07.1982, the steep rise in land prices due to industrial and commercial developments in the area justified adopting a rate between Ex. A1 (Rs.80,000/- per acre) and Ex. A-3 (Rs.35,000/- per acre) and fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre holding that the acquired lands were of superior quality to those in Ex. A3 and on par with those in Ex. A1. The Court further directed payment of statutory benefits under the Act, namely 30% solatium, 12% additional market value from 01.07.1982 to 30.04.1988, interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession and 15% per annum thereafter till realization, together with interest on solatium and additional market value. 12. Consequently, the Reference was allowed with proportionate costs. 13. Thus, upon appreciation of the said evidence, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs. 4,000/- per acre to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. 14. 12. Consequently, the Reference was allowed with proportionate costs. 13. Thus, upon appreciation of the said evidence, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs. 4,000/- per acre to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. 14. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2002 passed by the Reference Court, the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, has preferred the present Appeal. VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the Appellant (State/LAO): 15. The learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the Judgment and Decree of the Court below enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,000/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre are contrary to law, against the weight of evidence, and opposed to the probabilities of the case. 16. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the Court below erred in placing reliance upon Ex. A1, which is a post-notification sale, and except for the interested oral testimony of the claimants, there is no evidence on record to establish the similarity or comparability of the land sold under Ex. A1 with the acquired land. 17. It is further contended that the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Ex. A3 (order in O.P.No.74/1996) is wholly untenable, inasmuch as the claimants did not produce any documentary evidence to prove similarity or comparability of the lands covered therein with the acquired land, nor did they file any map to show proximity. The Reference Court also failed to properly consider the evidence recorded in the case covered by Ex. A3. 18. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the Reference Court committed an error in placing reliance upon Ex. A2 sale deed, in the absence of any documentary or cogent evidence filed by the claimants to prove similarity or comparability of the land covered under Ex. A2 with the acquired land. 19. On behalf of the Appellant it is submitted that the enhancement of compensation to Rs.50,000/- per acre is highly excessive and unjustified, and further that the Reference Court erred in granting the additional amount of 12% per annum from the date of taking possession, whereas it ought to have been restricted to the period from the date of notification till the date of award, since possession was admittedly taken prior to the notification. 20. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Learned Government Pleader has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed. B) Contentions of the Respondents (Claimants): 21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the LAO failed to consider the sale deeds and oral representations submitted by the respondents, which clearly indicates the true market value of the lands at the time of acquisition. The undervaluation by the L.A.O. at Rs.4,000/- per acre was manifestly unjust and did not reflect the actual market conditions. 22. It is submitted that the acquired lands were fertile, productive, and of high utility, with road access via the Huzurabad–Jammikunta road, thereby increasing their marketability. The L.A.O. did not account for the potentiality of the lands to yield commercial crops, which generated an annual income of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- after cultivation costs. 23. The respondents contended that the lands, if sold for construction or other commercial purposes, would have fetched a value far exceeding the amount fixed by the L.A.O., demonstrating that the Reference Court correctly enhanced the compensation. 24. They relied upon documentary evidence, including sale deeds and certified orders of the Reference Court in other land acquisition matters, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3, to demonstrate that the lands in their village were worth Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition. The Reference Court rightly relied on these documents to fix the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre. 25. The respondents further submitted that the appellant’s claims challenging Exs.A-1 to A-3, including the post-notification sale agreement and alleged lack of proximity or similarity, were baseless. The Reference Court properly assessed the fertility, utility, location, and marketability of the acquired lands, and correctly rejected the appellant’s contentions, enhancing the award to a fair and just amount. 26. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Counsel for Respondents prayed that, there being no merit in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 27. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? (ii) Whether the enhancement granted is in accordance with law and evidence on record? Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? (ii) Whether the enhancement granted is in accordance with law and evidence on record? (iii) To what relief are the claimants entitled? VIII. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION: 28. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart of compensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: Extent Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) Ac. 11.33 gts Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 46,000/- 29. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence, it is manifest that the LAO had adopted a conservative approach in fixing the market value, whereas the Reference Court, on the other hand, took into account: i. the location and potentiality of the lands; ii. the sale exemplars of the proximate period; and iii. the comparability of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands. 30. The critical question, therefore, is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Exs. A1 to A3, and its ultimate fixation of market value at Rs. 50,000/- per acre, can be said to be justified in law. IX. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 31. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and also examined the record of the case, including the pleadings, oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A3, as well as Ex. B1 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer. 32. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the acquired lands, admeasuring Ac.11.33 gts., were taken for the purpose of canal excavation pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 24.12.1984. The LAO, while fixing compensation at Rs.4,000/- per acre, placed reliance on a sale deed dated 19.01.1983 pertaining to Sy.No.536/B of Bethigal village. However, the said sale deed was never produced before the Reference Court, nor were the parties to the transaction examined, thereby rendering the reliance placed upon it devoid of evidentiary value. The LAO, while fixing compensation at Rs.4,000/- per acre, placed reliance on a sale deed dated 19.01.1983 pertaining to Sy.No.536/B of Bethigal village. However, the said sale deed was never produced before the Reference Court, nor were the parties to the transaction examined, thereby rendering the reliance placed upon it devoid of evidentiary value. The Reference Court was therefore justified in discarding the award passed by the LAO as being unsupported by reliable evidence. 33. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the claimants, it is seen that Ex.A1 reflected a sale transaction valuing the land at Rs.80,000/- per acre, Ex.A2 reflected a sale transaction at Rs.60,000/- per acre (though undervalued in the document for stamp duty purposes), and Ex.A3 was a Order and Decree in O.P.No.74 of 1996, wherein compensation for lands in Bethigal village was enhanced from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.35,000/- per acre. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 categorically establishes that the acquired lands were fertile, irrigated, and capable of yielding commercial crops, unlike the rocky and barren lands. 34. It is pertinent to note that the principal objection of the appellant/State is that Ex. A1 is a post-notification transaction and therefore cannot be relied upon. It is true that Ex. A1 is of the year 1985, whereas the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 24.12.1984. It is settled principle of law that post-notification transactions are to be approached with caution, as they may not reflect a free-market value but could be influenced by the acquisition itself. However, it is equally well settled that a post-notification sale cannot be completely excluded from consideration if it is proximate in time, genuine, and reflective of the true market conditions prevailing. In the present case, Ex. A1 was executed shortly after the notification and is not shown to be collusive. Therefore, it may still offer guidance, though it cannot be the sole determinant. 35. With regard to Ex. A3, the appellant contended that the lands covered therein were not shown to be proximate or comparable to the acquired lands, and no map was filed to demonstrate their location. While this contention carries some weight, it cannot be overlooked that Ex. A3 pertains to lands in the same Bethigal village, and the Reference Court was justified in treating it as a relevant piece of evidence. While this contention carries some weight, it cannot be overlooked that Ex. A3 pertains to lands in the same Bethigal village, and the Reference Court was justified in treating it as a relevant piece of evidence. However, the extent to which it should guide the determination must be moderated, since comparability in fertility, topography, and exact location has not been fully established by the claimants. 36. On the other hand, Ex. A2, appears to be the most reliable document. It reflected a sale transaction at Rs.60,000/- per acre, though the document was admittedly undervalued for stamp duty purposes. The transaction was proximate in point of time and related to lands in the same village, and no material has been produced by the appellant to discredit its authenticity. Therefore, Ex. A2 furnishes the basis for determining the market value, with necessary adjustments having regard to the fertility and commercial potentiality of the acquired lands. 37. It is to be noted that the Reference Court, while fixing the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre, placed reliance both on Ex. A1 (Rs.80,000/- per acre) and Ex. A3 (Rs.35,000/- per acre), and adopted a mean figure between the two, by taking into account the quality of the acquired lands. While the approach of balancing the evidence was broadly correct, the adoption of Ex. A1 as a guiding factor to such a significant extent was, in my considered view, not entirely justified given its post- notification character. Similarly, the reliance on Ex. A3, though relevant, is weakened by the absence of clear proof of comparability. X. CONCLUSION: 38. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the determination of market value of the acquired lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre by the Reference Court is high. Considering the overall evidence, particularly Ex. A2, which indicates Rs.60,000/- per acre, and making a reasonable deduction to account for possible exaggeration in post- notification or judicially enhanced figures, it would be just and proper to fix the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre. This figure, while being substantially higher than the meagre Rs.4,000/- per acre awarded by the LAO, also strikes a balance by moderating the enhancement made by the Reference Court, thereby doing justice both to the claimants and to the public exchequer. 39. This figure, while being substantially higher than the meagre Rs.4,000/- per acre awarded by the LAO, also strikes a balance by moderating the enhancement made by the Reference Court, thereby doing justice both to the claimants and to the public exchequer. 39. As regards to the statutory benefits, respondents/claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award, together with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Act. However, the contention of the appellant that the 12% additional amount cannot be granted from the date of taking possession but only from the date of notification merits acceptance, in line with the statutory scheme. The award of the Reference Court is therefore modified to this limited extent. XI. RESULT 40. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Special Deputy Collector deserves to be partly allowed. The compensation for the acquired lands is reduced from Rs.50,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre. The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits permissible under the Act, including solatium, additional market value and interest as modified herein. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Appeal shall also stand closed.