Land
Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Vs. Male Pullamma & Ors [1996]
INSC 433 (21 March 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Nanavati G.T. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 135 1996 SCALE (3)341
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5253 OF 1996 [Arising out of SLP Nos.3440 of 1994 AND CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 5252 OF 1996 [Arising out of SLP No.12419 of 1994
O R D
E R
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
Notification
under Section 4 [1]-of the Land Acquisition Acts 1894 [for shorts the 'Act']
acquiring 89 acres, 37 gunthas of land situated in Siddanti village of Shamshabad
in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh was published on 16th October, 1982.
The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated May 13, 1987 determined compensation 9 Rs.20,000/- per acre. In
addition, he also awarded Rs.63,616/- towards the value of the structures
constructed on the land in which poultry farms were set up.
On
reference, the Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District by his award and decree
dated February 20 1991 enhanced the compensation to Rs.35,000/-
per acre. In addition, he also awarded Rs.50,000/- more than the amount awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the value of the structures. On appeal,
the Division Bench of the High Court in A.S. Nos.1176
and 2077 of 1991 by order dated July 8, 1993 enhanced the compensation to Rs.14/-per square yard which
worked out to Rs.67,800/- per acre and remitted the case with regard to
determination of value of structures. Thus this appeal by special leave.
Shri Venugopal
Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondents contended that this Court in
P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development
Authority, Hyderabad & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 305], considering various factors
in evaluating the market-value, stated seven circumstances to be taken into
consideration in determining the compensation. The High Court accepted the sale
instance Ex.A-4 dated September
8, 1982 which is
earlier in point of time than the date of the notification under which the land
was sold at Rs.30/- per square yard. The High Court, therefore, after giving
deductions at 53% towards the developmental charges etc. determined the market
price as Rs.14/- per sq.yd. The fixation of the market-value, therefore, is not
vitiated by any error of law. He also contended that the High Court has
recorded a finding that the lands are possessed of potential value. On that
basis, deduction towards further development was given and fixation of the
market-value cannot, therefore be said to be illegal.
We
find no force in the contention. It is seen that the respondents themselves had
admitted during cross examination that the lands were agricultural lands as on
the date of the notification. They had set up a poultry farm it and to that
small extent it was being used as such. Both the reference Court and the Land
Acquisition officer founds as a fact, that the lands are agricultural lands.
The High Court has noted in the judgment that some development had already
taken place around the area and in the neighborhood there is a railway station,
hospital and school etc. On that basis the High Court has held that the lands
had the potential value for building purposes. The finding is wholly
unsustainable on the basis of the evidence on record. It is seen that as on the
date of the notification, admittedly, the land were being used for agricultural
purposes and a part of the land was used for poultry purposes. Under these
circumstances, it could not be said that the lands have the potentiality to be
used as building sites as on the date of the notification, Sale deed dated
September 8, 1982 [Ex.A-4] was executed just before the notification was
published under Section 4 [1] in respect of an extent of 198 square yards of
land which worked out to Rs.30/- per square yard.
By no
stretch of imagination it could form the sole basis for determination of the
compensation. Ex. A-4 is therefore, rejected as no prudent purchaser would be
willing to purchase vast extent of land on that basis. The feats of imagination
of the Division Bench of the High Court had run riot.
When
Ex.A-4 is excluded from consideration, the only question that arises is:
whether the lands could be determined as possessing building value in
hypothetical layout, as contended by Shri Venugopal Reddy. In P. Ram Reddy's
case [supra] the lands were abutting the developed area in which the building
plots were sold for those purposes, as was admitted by the Land Acquisition
Officer which was noted in the judgment. In view of that development, this
Court had laid down the criterion in determining the market value. The ratio
thereof has no application to the facts in this case. The question of deduction
would arise only when the lands are found to have potential value and there is
evidence of development in the neighborhood. Facts, as found by the reference
Court and also Land Acquisition Officer, clearly indicate that there was no
development in the area or in the neighborhood as on the date of the
notification. Under those circumstances, the High Court was wholly wrong in
determining the market-value treating the acquired lands as possessing
potential value.
The
next question is: what would be the just and adequate compensation which the
lands are capable to fetch? In view of the findings of the reference Court that
the lands are agricultural lands, we think that just and proper compensation
would be Rs.40,000/- per acre. With regard to the value of the structures, the
remand order is maintained.
The
court will determine the same according to law.
The
State appeals are accordingly allowed. The claimants' appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2