The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer Nalgonda (A.P.) Vs. Morisetty Satyanarayana and O
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7288-7290 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15268-15270 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15268-15270 of 2000)
Petitioner: The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer Nalgonda (A.P.)
Respondent: Morisetty Satyanarayana and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7288-7290 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15268-15270 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15268-15270 of 2000)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 17, 2001
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 4, 6 – Compensation – High Court fixing compensation by relying upon fixation vide document pertaining to fixation of compensation in respect of land, notified on 29.8.80 -Claimants having filed at least four other sale-deeds – Relevant date in question was 7.7.77 whereas instance relied upon by High Court was of 29.8.80 – Comparable reduction in compensation – Sale instances showing increase in price – Small piece of land acquired earlier. Held that non-consideration of sale instances was erroneous. Reduction cannot be made because of instances of small piece of land, when there is increasing trend of market price. Considering the facts, compensation fixed at Rs. 1,40,000 per acre instead of Rs. 2,25,000.
Held:
It appears that the High Court has not given any importance to the fact that notification under section 4 in the present case was issued on 7.7.1977 i.e. before three years from the date of notification which was issued in subsequent land acquisition proceedings. (Para 6)
Normally while fixing the market price of the land under acquisition, when the sale instances are for small piece of land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixing the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the present case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey number. Various sale-deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. Other evidence on record indicates that in the village there is increase in market price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the fact that small pieces of land owned by different persons are acquired, this would not be a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that relevant sale-deed is for a small piece of land. (Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal nos. 2901/99. 3078/99 and 7/2000, the land acquisition officer (revenue divisional officer), Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh has filed these appeals.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court fixed the compensation of the land under acquisition @
Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre by relying upon exhibit A-10, which relates to the fixation of rate of compensation for survey no. 367 for which notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquiring the land was issued on 29.8.1980.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that impugned order, on the face of it, is illegal and erroneous because the court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the relevant date for fixing the market price in the present case was 7.7.1977 i.e. the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing a bus stand and bus depot, in village Bechirag Madharam, Suryapet Taluk, district Nalgonda. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the sale-deeds produced by the claimants for fixing market price of the land under acquisition and submitted that the market price fixed by the High Court is totally erroneous and unjustified one.
5. Claimants have produced on record following sale-deeds:-
1. Exhibit A-7, sale-deed dated 15.2.1974 by which 20 gunthas of land out of survey no. 263 was sold @ Rs. 1000/- per guntha.
2. Exhibit A-4 sale-deed dated 11.12.1975 by which 5 gunthas and 6 sq. yards of land out of survey no. 263 was sold @ Rs. 3500/- per guntha. Learned counsel for the respondents after referring to the copy of the sale-deed and the evidence, submitted that there is apparent mistake in the judgment of the High Court in mentioning rate per guntha at Rs. 2500/- instead of Rs. 3500/-. Relying upon the said submission, we have accepted the said figure of Rs. 3500/-.
3. Exhibit A-5 copy of sale-deed dated 13.9.1977 by which 6 gunthas of transfer of land out of survey no. 263 was sold for a consideration of Rs. 20000/-.
4. Exhibit A-6 which is a sale-deed dated 30.12.1978 by which 2 gunthas of land out of survey no. 262 was sold @ Rs. 4500/- per guntha.
6. In our view, had the High Court applied its mind and considered the sale-deeds relied upon by the claimants, it would not have fixed the compensation @ Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre, solely on the basis of exhibit A-10 for which, notification under section 4 was issued on 29.8.1980. It appears that the High Court has not given any importance to the fact that notification under section 4 in the present case was issued on 7.7.1977 i.e. before three years from the date of notification which was issued in subsequent land acquisition proceedings. This would also mean that after the project of acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing a bus-stand and bus depot, there was increase in the price of the land in the village. In our view, in this set of circumstances, there was no reason in not relying upon the sale-deeds of some portions of the land under acquisition on various dates. Under the acquisition in question, some portions of land of survey nos. 263, 264 and 265 are acquired, therefore, sale-deed pertaining to portion of land of survey no. 263 would be most relevant piece of evidence for fixing the market price of the land. In our view, relevant sale deed dated 11.12.1975 (exhibit 4) would reflect the market price of the acquired land.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that the land which was transferred by exhibit A-4 was only the 5 gunthas of land whereas the land which is acquired is 14 acres 32 gunthas. As against this, the learned counsel for the claimants pointed out that in the present case it would be wholly erroneous to state that 14 acres 32 gunthas of land of one or two individuals was acquired. He submitted that as per the chart which has been produced on record, land belonging to 26 persons is acquired and out of them most of the claimants were owners of less than 20 gunthas of land, therefore, there is no question of applying the principle of reducing the price on the basis of sale instance for a small piece of land.
8. It is true that normally while fixing the market price of the land under acquisition, when the sale instances are for small piece of land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixing the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the present case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey number. Various sale-deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. Other evidence on record indicates that in the village there is increase in market price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the fact that small pieces of land owned by different persons are acquired, this would not be a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that relevant sale-deed is for a small piece of land.
9. In this view of the matter, we fix the market price of the land under acquisition on the basis of exhibit A-4 at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per guntha which comes to Rs. 1,40,00/- per acre. We modify the judgment and order passed by the High Court accordingly. Rest of the judgment and order of the High Court is confirmed. The appeals are allowed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal nos. 2901/99. 3078/99 and 7/2000, the land acquisition officer (revenue divisional officer), Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh has filed these appeals.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court fixed the compensation of the land under acquisition @
Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre by relying upon exhibit A-10, which relates to the fixation of rate of compensation for survey no. 367 for which notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquiring the land was issued on 29.8.1980.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that impugned order, on the face of it, is illegal and erroneous because the court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the relevant date for fixing the market price in the present case was 7.7.1977 i.e. the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing a bus stand and bus depot, in village Bechirag Madharam, Suryapet Taluk, district Nalgonda. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the sale-deeds produced by the claimants for fixing market price of the land under acquisition and submitted that the market price fixed by the High Court is totally erroneous and unjustified one.
5. Claimants have produced on record following sale-deeds:-
1. Exhibit A-7, sale-deed dated 15.2.1974 by which 20 gunthas of land out of survey no. 263 was sold @ Rs. 1000/- per guntha.
2. Exhibit A-4 sale-deed dated 11.12.1975 by which 5 gunthas and 6 sq. yards of land out of survey no. 263 was sold @ Rs. 3500/- per guntha. Learned counsel for the respondents after referring to the copy of the sale-deed and the evidence, submitted that there is apparent mistake in the judgment of the High Court in mentioning rate per guntha at Rs. 2500/- instead of Rs. 3500/-. Relying upon the said submission, we have accepted the said figure of Rs. 3500/-.
3. Exhibit A-5 copy of sale-deed dated 13.9.1977 by which 6 gunthas of transfer of land out of survey no. 263 was sold for a consideration of Rs. 20000/-.
4. Exhibit A-6 which is a sale-deed dated 30.12.1978 by which 2 gunthas of land out of survey no. 262 was sold @ Rs. 4500/- per guntha.
6. In our view, had the High Court applied its mind and considered the sale-deeds relied upon by the claimants, it would not have fixed the compensation @ Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre, solely on the basis of exhibit A-10 for which, notification under section 4 was issued on 29.8.1980. It appears that the High Court has not given any importance to the fact that notification under section 4 in the present case was issued on 7.7.1977 i.e. before three years from the date of notification which was issued in subsequent land acquisition proceedings. This would also mean that after the project of acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing a bus-stand and bus depot, there was increase in the price of the land in the village. In our view, in this set of circumstances, there was no reason in not relying upon the sale-deeds of some portions of the land under acquisition on various dates. Under the acquisition in question, some portions of land of survey nos. 263, 264 and 265 are acquired, therefore, sale-deed pertaining to portion of land of survey no. 263 would be most relevant piece of evidence for fixing the market price of the land. In our view, relevant sale deed dated 11.12.1975 (exhibit 4) would reflect the market price of the acquired land.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that the land which was transferred by exhibit A-4 was only the 5 gunthas of land whereas the land which is acquired is 14 acres 32 gunthas. As against this, the learned counsel for the claimants pointed out that in the present case it would be wholly erroneous to state that 14 acres 32 gunthas of land of one or two individuals was acquired. He submitted that as per the chart which has been produced on record, land belonging to 26 persons is acquired and out of them most of the claimants were owners of less than 20 gunthas of land, therefore, there is no question of applying the principle of reducing the price on the basis of sale instance for a small piece of land.
8. It is true that normally while fixing the market price of the land under acquisition, when the sale instances are for small piece of land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixing the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the present case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey number. Various sale-deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. Other evidence on record indicates that in the village there is increase in market price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the fact that small pieces of land owned by different persons are acquired, this would not be a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that relevant sale-deed is for a small piece of land.
9. In this view of the matter, we fix the market price of the land under acquisition on the basis of exhibit A-4 at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per guntha which comes to Rs. 1,40,00/- per acre. We modify the judgment and order passed by the High Court accordingly. Rest of the judgment and order of the High Court is confirmed. The appeals are allowed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
