Land Acquisition Officer, A. P vs Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr

The facts, in brief, are that the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification dated 03.01.1980 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the acquisition of lands admeasuring Ac 385.46 in Borrampalem village of Chintalapudi Taluk for foreshore submersion of Yerakalva Reservoir Scheme under Vengalaraya Sagar Project. Land of the claimants-respondents to the extent of Ac 9.53 each was acquired for the said purpose. After completion of the proceedings under the Act and after observing all formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1026/- per acre to the claimantsrespondents vide his Award dated 18.05.1984. The claimants-respondents received the amount of compensation under protest and submitted separate applications under Section 18 of the Act requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court. The matter was accordingly referred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The Reference Court observed that the Land Acquisition Officer had not considered the potentiality of the acquired land with other lands of similar quality and potentiality. However, taking into consideration the trend in the increase of the prices of the lands, compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre on yield basis of the crops and multiplier of 20 years capitalization was applied and an amount of Rs.600/- per acre has been awarded to the claimants-respondents. The Court also found that there were no fruit-bearing trees on the acquired lands.

The High Court has come to the conclusion that the Reference Court did not adopt the correct procedure in determining the compensation, as the lands are situated in the important area of West Godavari District, for which the compensation ought to have been not less than Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The High Court observed that for similar lands acquired for the same purpose prior to the issue of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present cases, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. If that is taken into consideration as the basis for giving 10% escalation, the compensation will be at Rs. 24,000/- per acre. However, the High Court awarded the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents, besides other benefits as prescribed under the law.

The claimants-respondents have placed on record Ex. A- 2, a certified copy of the Agreement to sell and Ex. A-3, the Registration Extract of the Sale Deed in pursuance to Ex. A-2. PW-2, the purchaser of the land, has purchased one acre of land for Rs. 19,800/- from Durga Prasad, a resident of Mathannagudem village. PW-1 has placed on record a copy of the Award in O.P. No. 88 of 1982 (Ex. A-4), whereby and whereunder the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre for the land in Mathannagudem village, which was acquired for the same purpose. A copy of the Award in O.P. Nos. 70 of 1982 and 71 of 1982, marked as Ex. A-5, would reveal that the Reference Court awarded a sum of Rs. 22,000/- per acre for the lands acquired for the same purpose in village Borrampalem. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that against the said Award the State Government preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the High Court on 10.02.1989, a certified copy whereof was placed on record as Ex. A-6 in support of the claims by the claimants-respondents. The claimants- respondents made the claim of their lands at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has noticed in its order that village Mathannagudem, village Tadavi and village Borrampalem in which the lands of the claimants-respondents were acquired are quite adjacent to each other. The Land Acquisition Officer himself awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for the lands covered by S. No. 98 of village Borrampalem vide Award Ex. A-5. The Reference Court has rejected the claim raised by the claimants- respondents for compensation of cashewnut plants planted in an area to an extent of Ac. 4.50 cents in the acquired lands, merely on the ground that no trees were found in existence on the lands at the time of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act or at the time of passing of the Award. The High Court has not recorded any finding in respect of the cashew nut plants grown by the claimants-respondents on some portions of the acquired land.

The Land Acquisition Officer in his order has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horsegram, bobbara, cholum were grown by the claimants-respondents in the acquired land No. F. 1384 to 1388 and in F. 1388, cashew nut plants were raised in some parts of the land to the extent of about Ac. 9.00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that there were no cashew nut trees found on the acquired land is factually incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in the evidence of the claimants-respondents led before the Reference Court that they had raised maize crop at one time, which would have fetched Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 per acre to them and other crops jowar and bobbara in the next season. The computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by this Court. However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.