HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH A.S.No.2213/1996 and CROSS OBJECTIONS Date: 3-8-2009 AS NO.2213/1996 Land Acquisition Officer (MRO),Armoor ..Appellant V. 1.G.V.Ranga Redy and others. ..Respondents. CROSS OBJECTIONS: G. V. Ranga Reddy ..Cross-objector V. Land Acquisition Officer (MRO) Armoor. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH A.S.No.2213/1996 and CROSS OBJECTIONS COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Armoor and cross- objections by the claimants are directed against the award of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad dt. 7- 12-1995 passed in OP No.17/1989 questioning the enhancement of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation respectively. The facts which are not in dispute, are briefly stated as follows: An extent of Ac.17-06 guntas of land belonging to the claimants (cross objectors) was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections at Degaon village of Armoor Mandal. The draft notification proposing to acquire the land issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published in the official Gazette on 15-3-1982. The Land Acquisition Officer after collecting the sales statistics prior to issuance of notification and after following the due procedure prescribed under the Act passed an award on 20-3-1986 fixing the market value of the bagath lands at Rs.13,200/- per acre and for dry lands at Rs.8,000/- per acre and supplemental award on 20-3-1980 giving bnefits under the amended Act 68 of 1984. During the course of award enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer obtained 13 sale deeds prior to issuance of the notification starting from 17-1-1981 to 8-8-1982, where highest value is shown as Rs.16,666/- except sale deed dt. 3-5-1981 under which two guntas of land was sold at Rs.3000/- which works out to Rs.60,000/- and held that sale statistics do not reflect the true market value, therefore he fixed the market value on the basis of capitalisation method as per the crops raised by the claimants. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants 1 and 2 sought for a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act for due determination of the market value. On reference being made, claimants 1 and 2 filed claim statement. Later claimants 3 to 5 were impleaded as partieis in IA No.531/90 dt. 15-6-1990. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land, first claimant himself examined as P.W.1 apart from four more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the referring officer except marking Exs.B-1 and 2, protest applications filed by P.W.2 and Exs.B-3 to B-5, protest applications filed by Claimants 3 to 5, no witnes was examined. Learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order while discarding the judgments covered under Exs.A-3 and A-4 on the ground that land covered under Ex.A-3 pertains to Issapalli, which is at a distance of 2 or 3 KMs from Degaon village and land covered under Ex.A-4 pertains to Ankapur which is at a distance of 7 or 8 KMs from Degaon village and Exs.A-9 and A-10, which are the, sale deeds that pertain to village Issapalli and adopting the capitalisation method on the ground that though sale deeds pertaining to the Degaon village are available but same were not marked by the claimants, by taking the yield of maize of 15 quintals at Rs.100/- per quintal and yield of turmeric of 9 quintals at Rs.306/- per quintal and after deducting 50% towards expendtirue and labour and applying 10 years’ multiplier, fixed the market value at Rs.22,000/- per acre. The reference court while holding that claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to compensation at Rs.22,000/- per acre with all statutory beneftis, rejected the claim of claimants to 5. Questioning the enhancement made by the reference court, the Land Acquisiton Officer filed appeal and seeking enhancement of compenation, the claimants filed cross-objections. Learned Government pleader for Land Acquisiton contended that in the absnce of any tangible evidence adduced by the claimants that the acquired land is capable of yielding 15 quintals of maize and 9 quintals of turmeric per acre, the reference court commmitted an error in believing the oral evidence adduced by the parties and enhancing the compenation. On the other hand, Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the claimants strenuously contended that under Ex.A-11 sale deed dt. 12-2-82, that is one month prior to issuance of present notification, an extent of Ac.0.03 ¾ guntas was sold for Rs.4200/-, which works out to Rs.10.75 per sq.yard, and the same can be taken as basis for fixation of market value after giving due deduction. The reference court in spite of proving Ex.A-11 by examining the purchaser therein has not considered the same in fixing the market value and therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- per acre by allowing the cross-objections. In the light of the above submissions made by the counsel, the point that arises for consideraiton in this appeal is, what is the true market vlaue to which the claimants are entitled to? P.W.1 who is a practicing adovate deposed that he owns an extent of Ac.6-00 of land and the acquired land abuts the main road and there are residential houses nearby. They kept the same fallow, for providing house sites and claims to have spent Rs.15000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre for levelling the same. There is a high school, electric sub-station, post office and travelling facilities in the village where acquire land is situated. He filed Exs.A-1 and A-2, certified copies of the pahanies for the year 1980-1981 and 1981-82 and also filed judgments covered under Exs.A-3 and A-4, relating to the villages Issapalli and Ankapur, where the civil court enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,000/- per acre and Rs.20/- per sq.yard after deduction. P.W.2 who is claimant No.2, who is incidentally a vendor under Ex.A-11 dt.12-2-1982, deposed that his land to an extent of Ac.4-00 situate at Degaon village was acquired by the Government and it is surrounded by houses on three sides and on the fourth side, there is P.W.D. road. He further deposed that they were cultivating the lands by well and canal and they used to raise turmeric, maize and cash crops. Accoding to him, he used to get 40 quintals of maize in a year and 50 quintals of turmeric. He also deposed that rate of maize was Rs.180/- per quintal and turmeric was Rs.1000/- per quintal. To substantiate the fact of raising crops, he filed Exs.A-5 to A-8 pahanises relating to his land. P.W.3 who is the purchaser under Ex.A-9 dt.29-7-1980 deposed that he purchased an extent of 128.33 sq.yard of land situate at Isspalli for Rs.2,565/-. P.W.4 who is a village officer of Pipri village and Patwari of Issapalli village spoke about the sale of land to an extent of Ac.0-05 cents, situate at Issapalli, for Rs.5625/- by one Pedda Gangi Poshetty to P.Chinnaiah Admittedly, P.W.2 who is claimant No.2, in his chief examination, did not depose about his execution of sale deed in favour of P.W.4 and others under Ex.A-11 and consideration received thereunder. Further, as seen from the certified copy of sale deed, marked as Ex.A-11, P.W.5 was introduced as one of the purchasers. Curiously, Ex.A-11 discloses that stamps required for registration of the sale deed were pruchased in the name of P.W.2. Award itself shows that Deputy Tahsildar after conducting door to door enquiry has selected 216 beneficiaries and selected the land in various survey numbers and sent draft notification and drfaft declaration to the Collector for his approval and the same were published on 15-3-1982. Taking clue from the enquiry conducted by Deputy Tahsildar, Ex.A-11 was brought up to claim higher compenation. P.W.2 did not spoke about his execution of Ex.A-11 in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.5 supports the view that sale deed-Ex.A-11 was brought up at the instance of P.W.2 and the same cannot be taken into consideration though the reference court has not adverted to the genuineness of Ex.A-11 sale deed. Similarly, Exs.A-3 and A-4, judgments, cannot be relied upon because Ankapur is about 7 or 8 KMs from the Degaon village and Issapalli is at a distance of 2 or 3 KMs from Degaon village as admitted by P.W.1. It is settled proposition of law when the sale deeds of same village are available, the Land Acqusiiton Officer or reference court ought not to have taken the sale deeds of other villages. Though the Land Acquisition Officer referred 13 sale deeds in the award, what prevented the claimants from obtaining the certified copies of above sale deed and filing the same for proving the market value is not knonw. As already observed, in all the sale deeds market value ranges from Rs.1000/- to Rs.16666/- per acre except one saledeed dt.3-5-1981. In view of the same, learned Additional District Judge has not committed any error of law in discarding the above sale transactions. The only method available for the court to fix the compenation is capitalisation method. It is needless to say that some element of guess work is required in assessing the market value on the basis of capitalisation method. The reference court took the the yield of 15 quintals of maize at Rs.100/- per quintal and 9 quintals of turmeric at Rs.306/- per quintal. P.W.2 categoricallly asserted that in the year 1982 the rate of maize was at Rs.180/- per quintal and trumeric was Rs.1000/- per squintal. On what basis, learned Judge fixed the rate of maize per quintal at Rs.100/- and turmeric at Rs.306/- per quitnal is not on record. There was no cross- examination by the Land Acquisition Officer about the rate of maize and turmeric and there is no evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that maize was sold at 100/- per quintal and turmeric at Rs.306/- per quintal, therefore, it is held that the reference court has committed an error in accepting the same as gospel truth. In view of the same, while confirming the yield arrived at by the reference court, we fix the rate of maize per quintal at Rs.150/- and turmeric at Rs.800/- per quintal. It comes to Rs. 2250/- (15 quintals of maize at Rs.150/- per quintal) and Rs.7,200/- (9 quintals of turmeric at Rs.800/- per quintal), totalling to Rs.9450/-. After deducting 50% towards expenditure for raising crops, the average income per year per acre comes to Rs. 4725/- and after applying 10 years’ multiplier, the total net market value comes to Rs. 47,250/- per acre. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to market value of the acquired land at Rs.47,250/- per acre. Since the claimants restricted their claim at Rs. 40,000/-, they are entitled to compensation for the acquired land only at Rs.40,000/- per acre. We, accordingly, enhance the market value from Rs.22,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre. We also make it clear that the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them as per the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984 and in the light of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1]. In the result, the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J Date: 3-8-2009 kmr [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516