Mummidi Apparao (D)
Tr.LRS. Vs. Nagarjuna Fertilisers & Chem. Ltd.& ANR. [2008] INSC 1999
(21 November 2008)
Judgment
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)
NO.3635 OF 2007 Mummidi Apparao (D) Through LRs. ... Petitioner(s) Versus
Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondent(s) WITH SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3711 OF 2007 Mummidi Tulsamma ... Petitioner(s) Versus
Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondent(s) WITH SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4177 OF 2007 Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.
... Petitioner(s) Versus Mummidi Veeraraghavamma & Ors. etc. ...
Respondent(s) 2
AFTAB ALAM,J.
1.
This
batch of three special leave petitions arises from land acquisition proceedings
and the matter in dispute is the rate of compensation for the acquired lands as
determined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. SLP (Civil) Nos. 3635 and 3711 of
2007 were filed on behalf of claimants/landholders and SLP (Civil) No. 4177 of
2007 at the instance of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. for whose
benefit the lands were taken in acquisition. In course of hearing, counsel
appearing for the claimants/landholders stated that they accepted the
compensation fixed by the High Court and did not wish to challenge the High
Court judgment any longer; hence, SLP (Civil) Nos. 3635 and 3711 of 2007 are
dismissed as not pressed. This leaves us to consider SLP (Civil) No. 4177 of
2007 filed by the industrial establishment for which the acquisition was made.
2.
The
Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired altogether about 600 acres of land for
the petitioner, Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. for creation of
green-belt around the industrial unit and for laying down pipes for supply of
water etc. The present SLP is in regard to lands measuring to an area of 41.05
acres out of the total acquisition. The area of 41.05 acres, forming the
subject matter of dispute, was acquired in two proceedings. For 3 the area of
6.11 acres the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 25 January 1991 and the acquisition proceeding was concluded in award
no.1/92. Another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2
December 1991 for the area of 34.94 acres and the second proceeding concluded
in award no.2 of 1992. For the purpose of fixing the rate of compensation the
Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands covered by award no.1/92 in two
categories. For category one lands he fixed the market value @ Rs.42, 000/- Per
acre and for category two lands @ Rs.35, 200/- Per acre. The market value for
the lands covered under award no.2/1992 was fixed at the uniform rate of Rs.37,
000/- Per Acre. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value as
indicated above by firmly holding that the lands in question were purely
agricultural in nature. He also referred to an earlier acquisition under award
no.10 of 1988, dated 19 October 1988. In the earlier case the matter had gone
up to the High Court and the High Court had determined the amount of
compensation @ Rs.82, 600/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer observed
that there was no distinction between the lands covered by award no.10 of 1988
and the present lands and hence, the rate of compensation fixed for the earlier
acquisition would be a good basis for fixing 4 compensation in the present
proceeding. (See award of the Land Acquisition Officer at Pp.30, 31 and 34 of
the SLP brief).
3.
Aggrieved
by the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer the landholders took the matter
to the reference court under Sec.18 of the Act.
Before the reference
court it was strongly urged on behalf of the claimants/landholders that the
Land Acquisition Officer grossly erred in treating the acquired lands as merely
agricultural lands. The claimants/landholders submitted that having regard to
their location and the developments all around the acquired lands had fully the
potential of developing into housing sites and as a matter of fact were fast
taking up that character; small pieces of land in close vicinity of or even
abutting on the acquired area were being sold for construction of dwelling
units. In support of their submission the claimants/landholders relied upon a
number of sale deeds (exts.B2 to B7) produced in evidence before the reference
court. The reference court accepted the case of the claimants/landholders and
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada by his judgment dated 30 October
2000 held that the sale deed ext. B2 formed a sound basis for fixing the rate
of compensation for the acquired lands. Exhibit B.2 is in regard to the sale of
a piece of land, 110 sq. yards in area, that took place on 23 July 1990 for a
consideration of Rs.14, 850/-. The Principal Senior Civil Judge observed that
the piece of land sold under the sale deed ext.B.2 just abutted on the 5
acquired land. He also observed that though the sale transaction was brought to
the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer he rejected it on the ground that it
related to S No.248 where house sites were already made, whereas the acquired
land was not readily fit as a housing site. Discussing the evidentiary value of
ext. B.2 the Civil judge observed as follows:
"No suggestions
are made to R.W.4 to the effect that Ex.
B.4 (sic. Ex.B.2)
transaction is fraudulent transaction or nominal transaction, as such it can be
held that on considering the potential value of the site covered under Ex.B.2,
R.W.4 purchased the house site covered under Ex.B.2 It is to be further held
that the site covered under Ex.B.2 is under approved lay out made in the year
1987 itself. As such sale transaction under Ex.B.2 can be looked into, to see
whether Ex.B.2 sale transaction can be relied upon as comparative or
representative sale for fixation of the market value for the present acquired
land."
4.
The
market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deed ext.B.2 worked
out to Rs. 6, 53,400/- per acre. The Civil judge deducted one third of the
value so arrived at as development cost and came to the figure Rs.4, 35,000/-
Per acre. It recorded its finding as follows:
"Accordingly I
find that market value fixed by Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land
covered under O.P.203/93 at Rs.35, 200/- is not adequate. So also market value
fixed by Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.37, 000/- for the lands
covered under O.Ps. 200/93, 201/93, 205/93, 206/93 and 208/93 is not adequate.
So also market value fixed at the rate of Rs. 42,000/- for the land covered
under O.Ps. 202/93, 6 204/93, is not adequate and market value fore the above lands
is enhanced to Rs. 4, 35,600/- per acre. Claimants are entitled to 12%
additional market value on the enhanced market value, 30% Solatium on enhanced
market value. Claimants are also entitled to interest at 9% p.a. for one year
from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% p.a. till payment of
enhanced market value on the enhanced market value. Claimants are not entitled
to interest on additional market value and Solatium."
5.
Against
the order passed by the reference court, the petitioner filed appeals before
the Andhra Pradesh High Court. During the pendency of the appeals the
petitioner also brought on record certified copies of the earlier decrees and
judgments of the High Court dated 11 August 2003 in A. S. No. 906/1999 and
dated 28 February 2005 in A. S. No. 664/2000 by which compensation for the
lands acquired in 1985 for the same purpose of creation of Green Belt for the
petitioner's factory was fixed @ Rs.82, 600/- per acre.
6.
The
High Court, however, didn't disturb the basic premise of the Civil Judge that
the sale deed ext.B.2 served as a good basis for fixing the market value of the
acquired land. But having regard to the small area of the land transferred
under the sale deed ext.B.2 and further in view of the undeveloped state of the
acquired land at the time of acquisition deemed fit to deduct as development
charges 50% from the market value of the land 7 fixed on the basis of ext.B2.
Thus by its judgment and order dated 9 October 2006 the High Court arrived at
the figure of Rs.3, 25,000/- per acre and fixed the compensation at that rate.
The High Court further clarified that the claimants would be entitled to 12%
towards additional market value and other statutory benefits as laid down in
the judgment of this Court in Sunder
7.
Mr.
Parasaran Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the High
Court judgment for accepting the sale deed ext.B.2 as the basis for fixing the
rate of compensation and merely enhancing the ratio of deduction from 1/3rd to
half. Learned counsel submitted that the entire approach of the Civil Judge and
the High Court was quite wrong. The sale deed, ext.B.2 was in respect of a very
small piece of land, only 110 square yards in area that was purchased with the
declared intent to construct a dwelling house. The consideration shown in
ext.B.2 could not, therefore, form the basis for determining the rate of
compensation for the acquired land.
8.
Mr.
Parasaran submitted that the real controversy in the matter is whether at the
time of acquisition the acquired land was agricultural or it had the potential
to develop into a housing site. He took the stand that the acquired land was
nothing but agricultural and it was wrong to see in it any potential to develop
into a site for construction of houses. He further 8 submitted that the Land
Acquisition Officer had rightly taken the land as purely agricultural. In
support of the submission he invited our attention to different passages in the
awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer. He also referred to the statements
of witnesses examined before the court to contend that the acquired land was
agricultural in nature and had no potential to develop into a housing site.
9.
Mr.
Parasaran submitted that the High Court disposed of the appeal in a very
perfunctory manner. He also stated that the observations made by the High Court
in Paragraph 4 of the judgment hardly justified the final order passed in the
appeals. Learned counsel also questioned the direction of the High Court for
deduction of 50% as development charges from the value of the land fixed by the
court and contended that in the facts of the case the ratio of deduction should
have been much higher. In support of the submission he relied upon several
decisions of this Court which we do not consider necessary to mention here.
10.
Mr.
Parasaran also referred to the earlier judgment and decree of the High Court
dated 8 November 2003 by which compensation for the lands acquired in the year
1985 was fixed @ Rs.82, 600/- per acre.
11.
Mr.
Parasaran placed strong reliance on the government order bearing G. O. Ms.
No.81 H. M. Agrl. U.D. Dept. (12) M. A. dated 23 February 1989 issued by the
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and published in the AP gazette 9 issue no. 14 dated 6
April 1989. The aforesaid order prohibited any constructions on the lands
around the industrial unit or the sale of those lands as house sites and set
apart the use of those lands for the purpose of green belt and afforestation.
The learned Counsel submitted that in view of the government order it was
meaningless and futile to contend that the acquired lands had the potential of
developing into housing sites since such user of the land was expressly
prohibited by the government.
12.
Learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants supported the Judgment
of the Civil Judge and submitted that he rightly took into account the
potential of the acquired land to develop into a housing site. Learned counsel
submitted the finding that the acquired lands had the potential to develop into
housing sites is one of fact, arrived at on proper appreciation of the
evidences brought before the Civil Judge and warranted no interference by this
Court. He further submitted that as a matter of fact the claimants/landholders
at one time felt aggrieved by the large deduction, directed by the High Court
from the market value of the acquired land but they no longer wanted to make an
issue of it. Learned counsel submitted that there was a background to the
acquisition of the lands, forming the subject matter of dispute. In a public
interest litigation filed against the petitioner industrial unit for causing
heavy environmental pollution the Court directed for creation/extension of the
green belt around 10 the factory unit and that led to further acquisition of
lands, including the lands forming the subject matter of the present dispute.
Learned counsel submitted the net result is that the common man went to the
Court complaining about the petitioner industrial establishment causing
environmental pollution and ended up by having his lands forcibly acquired for
creation/extension of the green belt.
13.
In
regard to the 1989 government order earmarking the lands around the factory for
afforestation and setting-up the green belt learned counsel submitted that the
Government order was published in the gazette on 6 April 1989 just a few months
before the issuance of the Sec. 4 notifications on 25 January 1991 and 2
December 1991. He further submitted that having regard to the back ground in
which the acquisitions were made it would be quite unjust and unreasonable to
put a cap onto the compensation for the acquired lands on the basis of the
government order completely disregarding the potential inherently acquired by
the lands in question as a result of the developments taking place all around
in the natural course.
14.
On
hearing counsel for the parties and on a careful consideration of the materials
on record we are satisfied that this matter doesn't merit any interference by
this Court. The Civil Judge came to hold and find that the acquired lands had
the potential to develop into housing sites and accordingly took ext.B.2 as the
basis for fixing the rate of compensation.
11 The High Court
having regard to the present state of the lands enhanced the ratio of deduction
to half of the market value as worked out on the basis of ext. B2. We are
satisfied that compensation awarded by the High Court to the
claimants/landholders is correct, just and proper and warrants no interference
by us.
15.
This
special leave petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
......
........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
..............................J.
[Aftab Alam]
New
Delhi,
November
21, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2