HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.29 OF 2007 DATED:05-08-2009 BETWEEN: The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. By its Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area-III, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. …Appellant AND Islavath Motilal (died) per L.Rs. & 6 Others. …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.29 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by Singareni Collieries Company Limited- Requisition Department is preferred challenging the enhancement of compensation made by the Senior Civil Judge at Manthini, Karimnagar District in O.P.No.14 of 2002, dated 23.6.2006. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant made a requisition for acquisition of the land to an extent of Ac.271.30 gts., situated at Jallaram Village of Kamanpur Mandal, through letter dated 13.8.1983 for opening of new mine No.6B-Incline which was revised to Ac.276.23 gts. vide leter dated 28.3.1984. Since there were structures etc., existing on Sy.Nos.416, 417, 454, 458, 461, 462, 467, 468 and 469 measuring Ac.60.31 gts., proposals were forwarded to the Government on 10.2.1984 by the Collector through his letter No.B/2636/84 for approval, and that the Government accorded approval of the draft notification through G.O.Rt.No.67, dated 19.4.1985 and the substance of the same was published in the A.P. Gazette on 13.5.1985 followed by publication in Deccan Chronicle on 19.6.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer after issuing notice under Section 5-A of the Act, fixed the enquiry on 11.6.1985 and as no claims or objections were received, the draft declaration was published in the District Gazette on 15.12.1985. On publication of the draft declaration, notification under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act was published on 6.1.1986. After complying the due formalities, L.A.O. passed an award No.1/1988 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,000/- per acre. As there was a dispute with regard to the land to an extent of Ac.5.20 gts., the L.A.O. referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication of the title dispute which was numbered as O.P.No.34 of 1988. On disposal of O.P.No.34 of 1988, the respondents herein filed an application under Section 18 of the Act on 2.11.1990 and on rejecting the same as barred by time, the respondents-claimants filed W.P.No.20324 of 2000 wherein, this Court by order dated 20.4.2000 directed that the matter be referred to the Civil Court. On receipt of reference, the reference Court registered it as O.P.No.14 of 2002 and on issuance of notice, the claimant NO.3 filed a claim statement, which was adopted by the other claimants, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre and structures as per the estimates with all statutory benefits. The General Manager of the appellant Company filed a counter contending that on passing the award, the matter was referred to the civil Court for the remaining extent of the land to an extent of Ac.55.11 gts. under Section 18 of the Act which was numbered as O.P.No.65 of 1998, to which, the claimants 1 to 3 were also parties in respect of their other lands, and that the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and in the said O.P., the claimants-respondents filed a compromise memo before the Lok Adalath towards full and final settlement of the claim where, the compensation for the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.14,500/- per acre and the market value of structures was enhanced to 23% over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and accordingly, the respondent No.2 (appellant herein) deposited the enhanced compensation together with interest before the Court at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per acre even for the lands which are subject-matter of the present O.P. In order to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of draft notification, on behalf of the claimants-respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of Land Acquisition Officer, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. The reference Court after taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, who is none other than the claimant No.3 and P.W.2, who is the vendor of sale deed under Ex.A.1 and P.W.3, a Retired Assistant Engineer of I.B.Division, Karimnagar, and on consideration of documentary evidence adduced by the parties, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.36,000/- per acre apart from enhancing the compensation for the structures, wells and tress one time over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer with 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation along with other statutory benefits. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent-requisition department. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Company strenuously contended that when the claimants themselves claimed the compensation at Rs.20,000/- per acre, awarding of compensation at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per acre by the reference Court basing upon the sale deed Ex.A.1, which was brought up document cannot be sustained. When it is admitted that the requisition was made for acquiring the land in August, 1983 and the proposal for acquisition of an extent of Ac.60.00 wherein the structures were existing was forwarded to the Government on 14.2.1985, Ex.A.1 sale deed which was executed on 15.4.1985 i.e. during the interregnum period, cannot be taken into consideration and the reference Curt mainly accepted the evidence of P.W.2-vendor under Ex.A.1, who deposed that the sale deed was registered for a lesser amount, but in fact, he received the more amount. He also contended that the consent award passed in O.P.No.65 of 1988 covered by the same notification, to which the claimants 1 to 3 were also parties, reflect the true market value and therefore, at the most, the reference Court could have awarded Rs.14,500/- per acre, but not more than that. Per contra, Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants vehemently contended that the claimants are not aware of the acquisition proposal and that under Ex.A.1 sale deed Ac.0.11 gts. of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- per acre, but the same was registered for a value of Rs.20,000/- per acre to avoid the stamp duty as spoken to by its vendor-P.W.2, and that the said land is similar in nature and adjacent to the acquired land and therefore, the said transaction has to be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. It is contended that merely because the claimants in O.P.No.65 of 1988 consented for the compensation of Rs.14,500/- per acre for their other lands cannot be taken as true market value to fix the compensation for the present acquired land, and that in the compromise decree passed in O.P.No.65 of 1988, it was also made clear that the terms of the compromise shall have no effect or bearing with regard to other land acquisition proceedings. In view of the same, it is contended that the reference Court rightly took into consideration Ex.A.1 sale deed for enhancing the compensation for the acquired land and in view of the amendment of the claim statement by the claimants, awarded the compensation at Rs.36,000/- per acre. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is ‘What is the true market value of the acquired land for which, the claimants are entitled to?’ The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants basing upon a certified copy of the claim statement contended that the claimants have claimed compensation at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre and in view of the same, awarding of Rs.36,000/- per acre by the reference Court is neither excessive nor exorbitant. In this regard, we have thoroughly gone through the original claim statement filed by the claimant No.3 in which, the claim was made for only Rs.20,000/- per acre but in the prayer portion ‘1’ number was added before Rs.20,000/- with a pen without there being any signature for the said addition. Similarly, in para 2, it is specifically mentioned that the sale consideration under Ex.A.1 sale deed Rs.5,500/- for Ac.0.11 gts., works out to Rs.20,000/- per acre. The learned Judge also in para 4 of the judgment, reproduced the averments of the claim statement for enhancement of compensation claimed by the claimants at Rs.20,000/- per acre. In view of the glaring circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the claimants-respondents have claimed only Rs.20,000/- per acre before the reference Court but not Rs.1,20,000/- per acre as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents. The 3rd claimant as P.W.1 testified that the land belongs to him and others was acquired by the appellant-Company for the purpose of opening of new 6-B Incline of Singareni Company, and he produced the registered sale deed No.970 of 1985, dated 15.4.1984 under which, Ac.0.11 gts. of land in Sy.No.504 of Jallaram was sold at Rs.22,000/-, which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. He deposed that their village is in Ramagundam municipality, and is having all civic amenities, and city buses are plying through their village. He further deposed that at the time of settlement before the Lok Adalath, their dispute was in the Court under Section 30 of the Act and he sought for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acre and also for the structures and trees. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Venkatraopalli is a gram panchayat village and that Ex.A.1 transaction belongs to the said village. He denied the suggestion that Ramagundam municipality is situated at a distance of 6 k.ms. from the village, and that he compromised along with other claimants in O.P.No.65 of 1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. But he admitted that the Singareni Company also deposited 23% more than awarded by LAO for the structures in the acquired lands as per the settlement. P.W.2, who is the vendor of sale deed-Ex.A.1 deposed that under Ex.A.1, Ac.0.11 gts. of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.22,000/- which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre, but to avoid stamp duty, he got it registered for the book value at Rs.20,000/- per acre. In the cross- examination, he deposed that Maheshwar Reddy, the vendee under the sale deed-Ex.A.1 purchased the land for constructing the house, but he did not construct a house on it. The purchaser got it registered for lesser value though paid the entire amount of Rs.22,000/- for the land of Ac.0.11 gts. covered by Ex.A.1. R.W.2, the Estate Manager of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, who filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, stated that upon the request of L.A.O., the Executive Engineer (R & B) Division, Karimnagar prepared estimation with regard to the structures and wells existing on the acquired land. The award under reference was settled before the Lok Adalath in O.P.No.65 of 1988 on 23.2.1991 including the extent of Ac.5.20 gts. covered by the present O.P. and that the entire amount was deposited by 2nd respondent (appellant) in the reference Court at Peddapalli vide account payee cheque No.407716 dated 7.5.1991 to the tune of Rs.8,83,593.14 ps. towards full and final settlement of the O.P. covered under the said award. He further testified that on referring the matter to the civil Court under O.P.No.65 of 1988, the Subordinate Court, Peddapalli by order dated 23.2.1991 enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.14,500/- per acre and the market value of the structures was enhanced to 23% over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, in terms of compromise memo filed by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer before the Lok Adalath towards full and final settlement. From the above evidence, it is clear that Ac.5.20 gts. of land including Ac.3.38 ½ gts. covered by the present O.P. was not subject-matter of the consent award passed in O.P.No.65 of 1988. Since the land to an extent of Ac.5.20 gts. was referred under Section 30 of the Act, the same could not be settled before the Lok Adalath along with O.P.No.65 of 1988. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants conceded that the claimants 1,2 and 3 herein are also the parties figured at serial Nos.50,51 and 52 in O.P.No.65 of 1988, which pertains to the other lands owned by them, but not for the land covered by the present O.P. The said fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Now, the question that has to be considered is whether or not Ex.A.1 sale deed can form basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. Admittedly, the General Manager of the appellant-Company has sent a requisition for acquisition of Ac.271.30 gts. of land situated in Jallaram Village for the purpose of opening of new mine No.6B-Incline through his letter dated 13.8.1983 and also revised the said requisition for Ac.276.23 gts. by his letter dated 28.3.1984 as is evident from the award, and that since the structures are existing in the part of the acquired land to an extent of Ac.60.31 gts., the proposals were submitted and the same were forwarded by the Collector to the Government for approval on 14.2.1985, for which, the Government accorded approval for issuing draft notification, through G.O.Rt.No.67, dated 19.4.1985, published in the gazette on 13.5.1985. During the interregnum period of sending of draft proposal and publication of draft notification, the sale deed under Ex.A.1 was executed and registered on 15.4.1985. Therefore, it is clear that the said sale deed was brought into existence to inflate the market value for enabling the claimants to claim higher compensation by four- folds. Hence, the said sale transaction cannot form basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. That apart, as already observed, P.W.2, who is the vendor of sale deed-Ex.A.1, in the cross-examination, deposed that Maheshwar Reddy, the vendee under the sale deed-Ex.A.1 purchased the land for constructing the house, but he did not construct a house on it even to the date of his deposition in the Court on 19.7.2006, which goes to show that even after lapse of 20 years, no house was constructed in the land covered by Ex.A.1. Therefore, if the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.1 is excluded from consideration, absolutely no other evidence is forthcoming for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land. Further, the oral evidence adduced by P.W.2 that he received Rs.22,000/- towards sale consideration under the sale deed for an extent of Ac.0.11 gts. of land though it was got registered for a lesser amount of Rs.5,500/- also cannot be taken into consideration in view of the bar contained under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents-claimants 1 to 3, who are figured as claimant Nos.50 to 52 in O.P.No.65 of 1988, which pertains to the land to an extent of Ac.55.00, compromised/settled the matter for enhancement of compensation at Rs.14,500/- per acre. It is now well settled that the award passed with consent of the land-owners arising out of the same notification is the relevant piece of evidence to fix the market value of the acquired land (see The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others v. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari & Others AIR 1995 SC 840). Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the market value fixed by the reference Court in O.P.No.65 of 1988 as the true market value of the acquired land which was acquired by the same notification. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.14,500/- per acre, and for the structures at 23% more than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Ex.B.1. The claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. AUGUST 05, 2009 Tsr.