The Singarenr Collieries Co. Ltd v. aged 28 yrs

Judgment

1. Komirineni Laxmaiah, S/o Rajaiah R/o Jangaon, died per LRs RRs 22lo 27 ...Appellant Komirineni Sudhakar Rao, S/o Laxmaiah R/o Jangaon. Komirineni Madhava Rao, S/o Laxmaiah R/o Jangaon.

4. Chittaboina Komuraiah, S/o Mallaiah R/o Jangaon. E b

7. o Rapati Ravr, S/o Venkataiah R/o Jangaon. M. Venkat Rao, S/o Hanumantha Rao R/o Jangaon. G. Gopal Rao, S/o Raghava Rao R/o Jangaon. K. Rama Rao, S/o tvlalahal Rao R/o Jangaon.

9. Miryala Rajaiah, S/o Narayana R/o Jangaon. 10 Mekala Pocham, S/o Lingaiah R/o Jangaon Vill. 11 K. Bhim Rao, S/o Ramaiah R/o Jangaon. 12 K. Thirupathi Rao, S/o Bhim Rao R/o Jangaon.

1., Marri Narasaiah, DIED. per LRs RRs 28 lo 32 14 Marri Rajam, S/o Narasaiah R/o Jangaon. 15 Bojja Anjaiah, S/o Machaiah R/o Jangaon. '16. K. Kanakamma, W/o Bheem Rao, Aged 50 yrs, Occ. HoLs Govarikhani lhold R/o

17. K. Renuka, Wo Thirupathi, Aged 20 yrs R/o Govarikhanr

18. K. Madhusudhan Rao, S/o Thirupathi Rao , Aged 10 yrs

19. K. Nlanasa, D/o Thirupathi Rao Being lvlinor Rep by Mothr: R.1 7 K. Renuka R/o Govarikhani

20. K. Mounka, D/o Thirupathi Rao Being l\Iinor Rep by Mothr: R/o Govarikhani R.'17 K. Renuka (Claimants/Petitioners 18 to 20 being minor through their r natural mother R. 1 7 Komireneni Renuka w/o Thirupathi R a Occ. Household, r/o Godavarikhani town) ,xt friend and :, aged 28 yrs, (Resp.16 to 20 are brought on record as LRs of deceased as per Order in I.A.No.353/98 dated 29.07.1998) lespondent No. 12 2'1. The LA Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer,, Peddapalli.

22. K. Ratnamma,

23. K. Damodar Rao,

24. K. Narayana Rao,

25. K. Ramachandra Rao, 26. K Sudhakar Rao,

27. K. Madhava Rao.

28. M. Lachamma,

29. M Mallaiah,

30. M. Rajaiah,

31. M. Lasmamma,

32. M Odelu, RRs 28 to 32 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased t{ Order dt.251041200'1 in CrlP No.8649 of 200'1. 3 vide Court ...Respondents l.A. NO: 2 OF 2000(CMP. NO: 21 603 0F 2000)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circur rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may )e pleased to stay the order and decree in OP No. 240187 df. 24-8-99 on the'le of Senior Civil Judge, peddpalli pending dispsoal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P SRI HARSHA REDDY (sc FoR StNGARENT COLLTERTES CO.LTD) / Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T RAMULU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KLI IAR SIIAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITT RAMAKII TSHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No. 3266 of2000 JUDGMENT'. (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice vqkiti Ramal{rishna Reddv) This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Se: ion 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.08.1999 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 240 of 1987 on the file of the Senirr Civil Judge, Peddapalti (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Ccr r1").

2. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Courl enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Off < er (for short, "LAO") in respect of the acquired lands, thereby giri rg rise to the present appeals at the instance of the Land Acquisiti rn Officer & RDO, Peddapalli.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall lereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Cor rt. 7 I BRIEF FACTS: -*1 i \ AKS.J&IRKR,J AS_3266_2000 -

4. The Land in Sy. Nos. 448,45018,451, 452 and 453 to an extent of Ac.8-39 gts of dry land situated at Jangoan Village of Peddapalli Taluq of Karimnagar District were acquired for the purpose of depillaring of 5-A incline mine by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. II. NOTIFI CATION AND AWARD:

5. A notification under section a(1) of the Act, was published on

14.2.1984. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award no. 17, dated

2.09.1985, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. l2,OOOl- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section l8 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O'P. No. 240 of 1987 before the Reference Court. III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE RXFERENCE COURT:

6. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following issues for determination: (i) Whether the award No.t7, dt. 2.09.1985 passed by the Land Acquisition officer is not reasonable and adequate? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to gc . enhanced the compensation, if so, at what rate? AS 3266 2000 IV. EWDENCE ON RECORD:

7. To substantiate their claim for higher corr pensation, the claimant examined PWs I to 3 and got marked L,xtri ;its Al to A3, which comprised exemplar sale deeds pertaining to ad i cent lands.

8. On behalf of the respondent before the Referen: : Court RWs I and 2 were examined and Exs. Bl and 2 were marke<l V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT

9. The Reference Court, upon consideration ol the evidence adduced, found that the evidence of pWs I to 3 shori.r that the value of lands in the vicinity ranges from Rs.60,,000,. per acre to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre in village Jangaon, indicating rr rt the acquired lands have high potential and market value. The Refer.r ce court finds the evidence of PWs I to 3 as credible and reliable.

10. The Reference court held that the contention or' he respondent that the sale deeds were fabricated to claim higher corrg :nsation is not sustainable as the LAo himself admitted that the r rnds near the ! \ 4 AKS,J&VRKR,J As-3266 2000 acquired property range between Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Hence, the sale deeds i.e., Exs.Al to ,{3, of lands in close proximiry to the acquired iands, can be relied upon to determine market value. I l. The Reference Court upon considering the evidence of PWs t to 3, Exs.Al to ,A3, and Ex. Bl, finds that the acquired lands are valuable, situated within municipal limits, in an industrial belt, and suitable for non-agricultural purposes.

12. Consequently, the Reference was partly allowed with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre under Section 23(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, along with 30%o solatium, l2%o additional amount from the date of notification till award, and interest at 9%o per annum for one year and l5oh per annum thereafter until payment or deposit.

13. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the Reference Court, respondent No.2 preferred the present Appeal. ----7 5 AXS,J&VRK]i,J AA 3266 2000 VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTTES: A) Conlenlions of lhe Appellanl/ Respondent No.2:

14. The appellanVrespondent No.2 has contenc:d that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compr: Lsation liom Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre without any suffici, nr or reliable evidence. It is submitted that the Reference court wr.r gty held that the acquired lands to be fertile and commercially valuat [e, though no material evidence was adduced regarding the nature cl yield or any developmental potential of the lands. The finding that .l e lands were rich and possessed potential for commercial exploitatior it is argued, rests upon mere assumptions, unsupported by any docunr ,ntary proof.

15. It is further contended that the Reference Court ,r -ongly retied upon the existence of nearby mining operations and cert rin industrial establishments 'like Kesoram Cements, National T't t rmal power Corporation (N.T.P.C) and F.C.I, to enhance the market value of the acquired lands.

16. The Respondent No.2 submits that the coal exrr rcted in the region belongs to the Govemment, ild"h"r"", mining ac ivity cannot I influence the value of the land. Moreover, the industries r ,l'erred to by 6 AKS,J&I/RKR,J AS 3266 2000 the Reference Court are located far away from the acquired site, within a distinct industrial belt, and their existence cannot constitute a valid or comparable factor for determining market value.

17. The Respondent No.2 also submits that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Exs. A 1 to ,A.3, which relate to small house-site plots situated more than 5 kilometres away from the acquired land, and hence cannot be taken as comparable sales for determining the compensation for a large extent of 8.39 acres.

18. The Respondent No.2 further asserts that the enhancement of compensation to Rs.36,000/- per acre is erroneous, unsound, and contrary to law. The Respondent No.2 maintains that the original award of the LAO was fair and just and accordingly deserves to be restored.

19. In the light of the foregoing submissions, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed. { 7 A]{5, J E" VRKR, J AS 3266 2000 B) Contentions of lhe Claimants/R espondents:

20. Per contra, the respondents have contended thlLt the Reference Court erred in not fixing the higher compensation err n after having categorically found that the acquired lands are rich, hip rly fertile, and possess immense potential for conversion into house sit commercial 's, establishments and shopping areas.

21. lt is submitted that the evidence of P.W.l, which stood corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 & 3, clearly e ;tablished that the acquired lands are even more fertile and valuzLl le than those covered under the sale deeds relied upon and cons dered by the Reference Court. The lands, being adjacent to the t ublic Welfare Department (P.W.D.) road and located within the incr strial arca are having high potential value.

22. It is further pointed out that even Ex. B-1 acknorv edges that the lands fall within the industrial belt, surrounded by <;r al mines and thickly populated localities, thereby indicating stron,z and growing demand for conversion into house site purposes. 8 AKS,J&VRKR,J A5_3266 2000

23. The claimants further contend that, having accepted the sale deeds Exs. A-1 to A-3, wherein the lands were sold ranging from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, the Reference Court erred in fixing the compensation at Rs. 36,000/-.

24. Therefore, the claimants submit that the compensation fixed at Rs.36,000/- per acre is wholly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,20,0001- per acre, being the true market value as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

25. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Leamed Counsel for the claimants has prayed that, there being no merit in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

26. 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: O LV'hether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? -q 9 AKS,J&i'.RKR,J AS 3266 2000 (ii) Wether the enhancement granted is in crt cordance with law and supported by evidence on record? (iii) To what relief if any are the claimants en;t led? VIII. COMPARA TIVE STATEMENTOF COMPIl 'ISATION: 27. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart ol :ompensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reltr :nce Court, is tabulated as under: Extent (Ac-Guntas) Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) (Rs. per acre)

8.39 12,000t- 36,000/- 24,000t-

28. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful rear lraisal of the evidence, it is manifest that the LAO had adopted a :onservative approach in fixing the market value, whereas the Referer:e Court, on the other hand, took into consideration the following relev urt factors: i. ii. the location and potentiality of the lands; the sale exemplars of the proximate periotl,. tt ul 10 AKS,J&IIRKR.J A5-3266 2000 iii. the comparabiliry of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands.

29. The critical question, that therefore, arises for consideration is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Exs. Al to A3, and its ultimate fixation of rnarket value at Rs. 36,000/- per acre, can be sustained in law and on the basis of the material available on record. IX. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

30. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the material available on record, the submissions advanced by the leamed counsel appearing for both sides, and the findings recorded by the Reference Court, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court, while enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre, has correctly relied upon the sale deeds marked as Exs. Al to ,A.3, which pertain to lands situated in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands.

31. The genuineness ofthese sale deeds was not disputed by the respondents, and the evidence of PWs. I to 3 consistently establishes that the acquired lands are of superior fertility, advantageous location and higher potential than those covered by Exs.A- I to A-3. 77 .AX.t J& 9R1(R, J /\s 326(; 2000 -7

32. The Reference Court has also recorded a catell ,rical finding that the acquired lands fall within the municipal limir ; of Jangaon Village, abutting the public works department road, ar I surrounded by industrial establishments such as Fertilizer Corpori tion ol India and N.T.P.C. These factors, coupled with the evictnce that the acquired lands were being converted into non-agricu Jt rral plots for residential and commercia[ purposes, clearly indicirr : their high potential value. 33 . It is pertinent to note that the Reference C < urt carefully assessed the entirc extent of 8.39 acres, taking into aci )unt not only the size and fertitity of the land but also its connectivitr. accessibility, and potential for commercial use. The submission of tlr : respondents that the sale decds of smaller plots situated slightly rr.,,ay from the acquired lands cannot be relied upon is untenable. Cor parative sale deeds, even of smaller adjacent plots, provide a reliabl : indicator of market value for larger extents

34. In Ravinder Kumur Goel v. State of Haryanal , th: Honourable Supreme Court reiterated that transactions of smaller extents may indeed be relied upon to assess the value of large ac luired tracts, '2023 SCC OnLine SC I47 72 AKS, J& I,?KR, J AS-3266'2000 subject to appropriate deductions r'T here warranted' At the same time' it was emphasized that the deternrination of comparability must be made with reference to loca-tion, fertility, and potentiality. The Apex Court, while addressing this issue, observed as follows: . '13- Therefore, since we have alreacly irulicaled that the High Court was not iustified in merely relying on the circular ftxing the.floor rates when olher evidence v'as availahle on the record pur:iuanl lo lhe renrund made, it is necessary for tts lo take nole as to whcthertheReJerenceCourthadconlmitledanerrorinnotrelying on the sale exemplars produced by the respondents v'ithoul analysing lhe cctntparttbility. The posilion of low is well settled thttt when large extcnt oi ldntls is accluired arul ifthe sale exemplar' also for the large exlctltisct'ailableonrecortlitwoultlbesaferlorelyonthesameif they are comparable transaclions' However' as already noted above' this Court in Atma Singh (supra) has also held thot the sale inslances of smaller cxtents cannol be icnored. I'urrher, lhis Court has reiterated in many cases lhltt the sale exemDlors l9!-9I!9!! can be relicdu on sub ect to aopropriare deduction be ing orovided tow,ards developmenl charses.'

35. On applying Section 23 of the Act' the Reference Court correctly evaluated the fair market value' taking into consideration contemporary sale deeds, location, potentiality' and local development trends.Hence,enhancementtoRs.36,000/-peracre,with30%o solatiurn, 12% additional amount from the date of notification to 13 AXS,J&VRKR'J / \s 3266-2000 award, and interest as provided, reflects a just zu d equitable compensation for the claimants' CONC LUSION: x. 36. In view of the foregoing discussion and upo t an overall appreciation of the evidence on record' this Court' takin 5 into account the contemporaneous sale deeds (Exs' A1 to A3)' the rdvantageous location and potentiality of the acquired lands' is of :l e considered opinion that the true market value of the acquired lands rs on the date of Notihcation under Section a(l) of the Act' was reasl rably fixed at Rs.36,000/- Per acre.

37. As regards the statutory benefits, the claimants sl all be entitled to solatium at 30oh and additional market value at !2% per annum from the date of notification tilt the date of award' together with interest at 9%o per annum for the first year from the late of taking possession and l5Yo per annum thereafter till the date rr realization' in accordance with Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the \ct' xt. RESULT: 3S. In the result, this Court finds no merit in th: Appeal' The judgment and award dated 24'08'1999 in O'P' No' 24() rf 1987 passed \ 14 AKS,J&VRKR,J ' A5-3266,2000 by the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, does not warrant interference. The Claimants shall accordingly be entitled to all other statutory benefits under the Act, including solatium, additional value and interest. Accordingty, the Appeal stands dismissed' In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed. SD/. N SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. 2. One CC to Sri P Sri Harsha Reddy (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD), Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri T Ramulu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK /PSI, N- iSii i i \\ c() 2 j i'' I D tasil \ , !l i! :l :rn ti. * ,// ..Kl// ."...ij -''2 HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 JUDGMENT AS.No.3266 of 2000 DISMISSING THE APPEAL I \? \4 [ 3490 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FIRST APPEAL NO: 3266 OF 2OOO Between: The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,, Rep by the General Manager, Ramagundam Project Area. ...Appellant AND

2. J.

5. 6

7. 8 a Komirineni Laxmaiah, S/o Rajaiah R/o Jangaon, died per LRs RRs 22to27 Komirineni Sudhakar Rao, S/o Laxmaiah R/o Jangaon. Komirineni Madhava Rao, S/o Laxmaiah R/o Jangaon. Chittaboina Komuraiah, S/o Mallaiah R/o Jangaon. Rapati Ravi, S/o Venkataiah R/o Jangaon. M. Venkat Rao, S/o Hanumantha Rao Rio Jangaon. G. Gopal Rao, S/o Raghava Rao R/o Jangaon. K. Rama Rao, S/o Malahal Rao R/o Jangaon- Miryala Rajaiah, S/o Narayana R/o Jangaon. '10 Mekala Pocham, S/o Lingaiah R/o Jangaon Vill. 11 K. Bhim Rao, S/o Ramaiah R/o Jangaon. 12 K. Thirupathi Rao, S/o Bhim Rao R/o Jangaon. 13 Marri Narasaiah, DlED.per LRs RRs 28 to 32 14 Marri Rajam, S/o Narasaiah R/o Jangaon. 15 Bojja Anjaiah, S/o Machaiah R/o Jangaon. 16 K. Kanakamma, Wo Bheem Rao, Aged 50 yrs, Occ: Household R/o Govarikhani 17 K. Renuka, Wo Thirupathi, Aged 20 yrs R/o Govarikhani 18 K. Madhusudhan Rao, S/o Thirupathi Rao , Aged 10 yrs

19. K.. Manasa, D/o Thirupathi Rao Being Minor Rep by Mothor R. 17 K. Renuka R/o Govarikhani

20. K. Mounka, D/o Thirupathi Rao Being Minor Rep by Mother R.1 7 K. Renuka R/o Govarikhani (Claimants/Petitioners 18 to 20 beino minor throuqh their rt, xt friend and natural.rnother R.17 Komireneni Rei'uka w/o Thirlpathi Rr r, aged 28 yrs, Occ. Household, r/o Godavarikhani town) (Resp.1 6 to 20 are brought on record as LRs of deceased lespondent No. 12 as per Order in 1.A.No.353/98 dated 29.07.1998) 2l. The LA Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer,, peddapalli

22. K. Ratnamma,

23. K. Damodar Rao,

24. K. Narayana Rao,

25. K. Ramachandra Rao, 26. K Sudhakar Rao,

27. K. Madhava Rao, 28- M. Lachamma,

29. [/l. Mallaiah,

30. M Rajaiah,

31. M. Lasmamma,

32. Itrl. Odelu, RRs 28 to 32 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R t3 vide Court Otdet d1.251O412001 in CrlP No.8649 of 2001. ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 19t,. aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 24-08-1999 in o.p.No. 24o of 1997 on t re fite of the S'enior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perr;rng the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree and the material papers ani upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Sri Harsha Reddy (SC FOR StNGARENt CC,t LtERtES CO.aTD), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri T Ramulu, Advocate for the lespondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: .1 . That the Appeal be and hereby dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appt:; I SD/. N SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR o //TRUE COPY// s c ON OFFICER To

1. The Senior Civil Judge, peddapalti 2. Two CD Copies ABK / PSL M/ HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 DECREE AS.No.3266 of 2000 DISMISSING THE APPEAL w