The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Potnoori Ratnamma & Ors.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.448 of 2000 & 895 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: V.Eswaraiah). (Per the Honourable Sri Justice These two appeals arise out of a common order dated 29th October, 1998 passed in O.P.Nos.76 of 1990 and 77 of 1990 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Appellants in both the appeals herein are the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer and respondents in both the appeals herein are the claimants respectively. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. The case of the claimants in brief is as follows: The house property of the claimants of an extent of 128 and 110 square yards respectively situated in T.S.No.39 of 9 of Suryaraopet of Kakinada Town were acquired for the purpose of construction of a bridge in Pyna-Kakinada Road at Indrapalem pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10-12-1988. Subsequently, on 1-3-1990, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.102/- per square yard in respect of the acquired property. The claimants received compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants made claim statements and sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. On reference, the said applications were numbered as O.P.Nos.76 of 1990 and 77 of 1990 before the reference Court. Before the reference Court, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. On behalf of the claimants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Basing on Ex.B.1 sale transaction, the reference Court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.475/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer. Heard the learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the claimants. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Court below has erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.102/- per square yard to Rs.475/- per square yard relying on sale transaction covered under Ex.B.1 which land is situated far away from the acquired land. Apart from that, the Reference Court ought to have accepted the reasons given by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr.P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the claimants that Land Acquisition Officer has not at all considered Ex.B.1 dated 27-7-1988 in a proper perspective in the award which is a relevant document and the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is dated 10-12-1988 and therefore, the sale transaction under Ex.B.1 is even five months prior to the notification in question. In such an event, there is no reason for the reference Court for not relying on Ex.B1 sale deed full fledgedly. Perused the material available on record. R.W.1 K.Satyanarayana deposed in his evidence that his property was acquired for construction of new bridge on Kakinada- Samalkot canal and that his house property was in the beginning of the road and the acquired property is part of Indrapalem village limits and within Gramakantam and the same is a mangalore tiled house with brick walls and cement flooring. He further deposed that the electricity supply was also provided to the acquired property and on one side of the acquired property, there was a canal and on the other three sides, there were houses. He further deposed that his house which was acquired was adjoining the road and now it is part and parcel of road and by the date of acquisition, the market value of site covered under his house was Rs.475/- per square yard and by the date of acquisition, the market value of his 1/3rd share in the acquired property was Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,00/-. He further deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed Rs.10,000/- as market value for the site and Rs.19,608/- for the value of the house i.e., structure and as such, he is claiming enhancement of market value for the acquired land. R.W.2 R.Sreeramachandra Murthy deposed in his evidence that he was working as a document writer. He deposed that the house of the claimant is on the road to the North of the said road leading to G.Mamidada from Kakinada. He further deposed that in the acquired land, presently a bridge was constructed. He further deposed that he has scribed Ex.B.1 at the instructions of both parties to Ex.B.1. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that basing on the valuation given in the Basic Value Register, the stamp duty for the document will be mentioned and in the same way, valuation was mentioned in Ex.B.1 and the market value in respect of some areas will be more than the value mentioned in the Basic Value Register and so also the market value in some areas will be less than the market value as mentioned in the Basic Value Register. He further deposed that for terraced house, the market value will be more and for tiled house, the market value will be less. He further deposed that the house mentioned in Ex.B.1 is adjacent to the road and the rent for the said house is Rs.400/- per month. We have perused the award as well as the order impugned in particular. As seen from Ex.B.1 sale transaction, it is a house property abutting the road and the lands acquired are on the corner of the canal of the road and unless, the bridge is constructed using the said property in question, there cannot be ingress and egress across the canal. It is also to be noted that the property in question is situated in the area which is part and parcel of Kakinada Municipality. In view of the nature of the property acquired and its location, we feel that fixation of the market value of the land basing on the sale transaction of a nearby vicinity under Ex.B1, is just and proper and therefore, it cannot be said that the approach of the reference court in fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.475/- per square yard, basing on Ex.B.1 sale transaction, which took place even 5 months prior to the issuance of 4 (1) notification, is arbitrary. Hence, we do not see any justifiable reason to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation, and as such, the order of Reference Court needs no interference by this Court and thereby, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the reference Court. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Dated 27-9-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.448 of 2000 & 895 of 2004 (Judgment delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Dated 27-9-2010.