Case: UNION OF INDIA Vs. DYAGALA DEVAMMA

These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in LAAS2 of 2010 and CO(SR)3 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by thet herein and partly allowed the cross objections filed by thes herein and enhanced the compensation as mentioned in detail infra.We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals.n 12.11.2003, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a notificationunderSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as) and acquired the land measuring about0 acres (SY3 and other connected survey numbers) situated at Jagitial Municipality, District Karimnagar (AP). The acquisition of land was for a public purpose, namely, "laying new broad gauge single railway line from Karimnagar to Jagitial PhaseI by the. This was followed by issuance of notificationunderSection 6 of the Act and then possession on 02.12.2003.5) TheLand Acquisition Officer (LAO) started proceedingsunderSection 11 of the Act for determination of the compensation payable to the landowners for their lands. By award6 dated 14.07.2006, the LAO determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate ofper acre for wet lands" andper acre for dry lands". The LAO also awarded compensation for structures, wells etc. to some landowners.6) Theclaimants (landowners) felt aggrieved and sought referenceunderSection 18 of the Act to the Civil Court in OP No.. By award dated 23.07.2010, the Civil Court (Sr. Civil Judge, Jagitial)d the market value of the land in question. The Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land atper acre uniformly. However, having regard to the totality of facts of the case, the Reference Court considered it just and proper to deduct 50% towards developmental charges and accordingly worked out the market value of the land atper acre" for being paid to the landowners.7) Thes felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereas the landowners also felt aggrieved and filed cross objections claiming enhancement of the market value determined by the Reference Court.By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by thes and partly allowed the cross objections filed by the landowners and enhanced the compensation toper acre. The High Court, upheld the market value determined by the Reference Court i.e.per acre but reduced the deduction towards developmental charges from 50% to 25% and accordingly worked out the compensationt the rate of. It is against this judgment, thes felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles, when we take note of the facts of the case at hand, we find that firstly, the land acquired in question is a large chunk of land (101 acres approx.); Secondly, it is not fully developed; Thirdly, thes (landowners) have not filed any exemplar sale deed relating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of the acquired land; Fourthly, exemplar relied on by the, especially8 pertains to very small pieces of land (19 guntas); Fifthly, the three distinguishing features noticed in the land in sale deed) are not present in the acquired land.It was for the aforementioned reasons, in our opinion, the Reference Court was justified in making deduction of 50% towards developmental charges from the market value. The High Court, in our opinion, did not assign any good reason as to why and on what basis, it considered proper to make deduction towards developmental chargesat therate of25% in place of 50%.This Court has held in Trishalas case (supra) that it depends upon the facts of each case to decide for determination of the market value of the land as to what percentage should be adopted for deduction. In our opinion, the reasons mentioned above were rightly made basis by the Reference Court to support the deduction of 50%.So far as the determination of market value made by the Reference Court is concerned, i.e.,per acre, the same having been upheld by the High Court, we do not find any justification to examine this issue again. Even the learned ASG did not challenge this finding and confined his submissions only relating to the issue of percentage of the deduction only.for thes was not able to point out any fact/evidence which could persuade us to uphold the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment.In view of the foregoing discussion, we are inclined to uphold the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court instead of the High Court.