AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—These appeals u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act arise out of the same award, namely Award No. 5 of 1981 passed by the Special Tahasildar, Land Acquisition, VUDA, Visakhapatnam. Hence, the appeals are being disposed of by common judgment.
The extent of land involved in these appeals is about Ac.2-62 cents situate in Sy. Nos. 9, 10, 13 and 14 of Pedda Waltair revenue village within the Municipal limits of Visakhapatnam. The lands were acquired for the purpose of Muvvalavanipalem IUDP Scheme. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published, in relation to these lands, on 22-3-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award No. 5 of 1981. He fixed the market value at Rs. 9.59 paise per square yard. On reference u/s 18 of the Act the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, by his identical awards passed on 31-8-1988 in O.P.Nos. 34/85, 35/85, 36/85, 32/85, 42/85, 43/85, 48/85, 49/85 and 50/85 enhanced and fixed the market value at Rs. 12.60 paise per square yard. A.S. Nos. 1615/89, 1634/89, 1616/89, 68/90, 81/90, 82/90, 77/90, 73/90 and 83/90 are filed by the State against the aforementioned O. Ps., respectively. The respondents in A.S. Nos. 1615/89, 1616/89 and 1634/89 have filed cross-appeals - A.S. Nos. 871/89, 1002/89 and 1239/89 against the awards in O.P. Nos. 34/85, 36/85 and 35/85 respectively. It may be stated that the Award of LAO covers a total extent of Ac.5-53 cents including the lands in question.
The Land Acquisition Officer, for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired lands, took into account the sale transaction relating to 1000 sq. yards in Sy.No. 68/1 at the rate of Rs. 21/- per square yard. That sale (item No. 27) took place on 2-6-1978. He considered it as a comparable sale similar in all respects to the acquired land except in level. After making certain deductions from the sale price reflected in the sale deed referred to in item No. 27, he arrived at the market value at Rs. 9-59 ps. per square yard.
On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam took into account Ex.A-1, dt.15-12-1978 which relates to a sale of small plot of 400 sq. yards situate in T.S.No. 379 of China Waltair revenue village located in East Point Colony layout. The sale price in Ex.A-1 is Rs. 40/- per square yard. Taking that as the basis, the learned Judge deducted 50% towards development and reclamation charges for the reason that the plot covered by Ex.A-1 is a developed plot. He then deducted Rs. 8-40 paise per sq. yard towards reclamation charges. Having thus arrived at the figure of Rs. 11-60 paise per sq. yard, the learned Judge added Re.1-00 per sq. yard on account of the time lag between the date of Ex.A-1 sale and the date of notification in the instant case. That is how he arrived at the market value at Rs. 12.60 per square yard.
We cannot approve the method of valuation on the basis of the sale price under Ex.A-1 in respect of which neither the vendor nor the vendee nor even the attestor was examined. In view of series decisions of the Supreme Court the latest being the case of Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., , it has practically no evidentiary value. Moreover, it is in a different locality and there is no evidence about the distance between the acquired land and Ex.A-1 plot. Therefore, it should have been eschewed from consideration. However, even going by the Award and taking the undisputed comparable sale adverted to in the Award, the market value ought to be more than what is determined by the lower Court. The LAO, apart from deducting l/3rd on the ground that the lands under acquisition were situated in an undeveloped area and the plot in item No. 27 was in a developed area, further deducted a sum of Rs. 4-41 paise per sq. yard towards reclamation charges on the ground that the lands were at a lower level. The deduction as much as of Rs. 4-41 paise per sq. yard towards reclamation charges that may be incurred by VUDA seems to us to be unwarranted. It may be that on account of the low level of the land, some additional expenditure will be involved for raising the level and this will be taken into account by the prospective purchaser. This is no doubt a relevant factor to be taken into account (vide Kurra Sambasiva Rao''s case, supra). Even then, the deduction of Rs. 4-41 paise per square yard apart from the l/3rd is unjustified. The reasonable deduction for layout and development expenses could be put at 40%.
If so, the proportionate market value that could be arrived at raking the sale instance relied upon by the LAO himself as the basis would be Rs. 12-40 paise per sq. yard, subject to further addition on account of time gap, as pointed out in the next para.
The other aspect which deserves notice is that the sale of land referred to as item No. 27 in the Award took place on 2-6-1978. There is a time gap of 9 months between the date of sale relied upon by the LAO and the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in the batch of cases. Already, the development was undertaken on a large scale by VUDA. There is evidence to the effect that there were residential houses and some industrial units near the land. The acquisition under IUDP Scheme started from 1977 or even earlier. In regard to acquisition of Pedda Waltair lands for the same purpose in 1977, we have disposed of a batch of appeals to-day. The factum of development and the potentialities of the land in question have been high-lighted by the LAO himself in the Award in the following terms:
"The lands under acquisition are situated on the southern side of Kailasa Hill and adjacent to Muvvalavanipalem village, hamlet of Waltair village. The Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam has already constructed houses by the side of the lands under acquisition under the IUDP scheme. The entire area in the vicinity of these lands has been developed. Hence, these lands have potential value and they have to be valued as house-sites."
The observations of the Supreme Court in Kurra Sambasiva Rao''s case (supra) are to the effect that it is not impermissible to look into the facts stated in the Award. The Supreme Court observed:
"On the basis of the evidence adduced before the LAO and the contents of the Award which is always part of the record and material evidence, it is difficult to accept the contention of Sri Sudheer Chandra that the lands possessed of potential value for being used for building purposes."
It was further observed:
"In view of the material collected by the Land Acquisition Officer himself as referred in the Award, we think that after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, the reasonable compensation should be......per acre."
Thus, having regard to the potentialities of the land and the admitted factum of acquisition of land in the neighbourhood in the year 1977, the appreciation of the value of land in question situate close to Muvvalavanipalem revenue village (within Vizag municipal limits) and adjacent to Vizag-Bheemli road must be considerable. Giving due allowance to this important factor, we are inclined to add about Rs. 3/- more to the figure arrived at in the preceding para. Viewed from this angle, the market value of the acquired land in this batch of cases can be safely fixed at Rs. 16/- per square yard.
We would like to clarify that we are resorting to the above mode of valuation, in view of the fact that both sides have expressed no objection for taking the sale deed relied upon by LAO himself in the award as the basis in the absence of any other acceptable material to assess the value of this land which undoubtedly had a ready market for sale as house-plots by the date of notification. The Counsel on both sides have not raised any doubts as to the genuineness or comparable nature of that sale.
Viewing from a different angle, we reach the same conclusion. In respect of the lands not too distant situated in Isukathota area of Pedda-Waltair village which have been acquired for the similar purpose, we have determined the market value at Rs. 17-25 paise per square yard in a case of notification published on 14-4-1977 and at Rs. 18-25 paise per square yard in the case of notification published on 23-2-1978, vide our judgment in A.S. No. 788 of 1988 etc. batch delivered to-day. But, those lands have more favourable location as admittedly, they are nearer to Visakhapatnam town and they are close to the National High-way. As per the evidence on record, the lands in question are of course adjacent to Bheemili Road. The claimants deposed that there were residential houses all around and certain industries nearby even by the date of acquisition. This evidence gains support from the observations in the Award itself which are extracted here in above. Thus, the fact that there was development in the vicinity of the acquired lands cannot, therefore, be denied. At the same time, the lands in question may not be commanding such a locational advantage as the lands covered by A.S. Nos. 788/88 and 2208/88. While that is so, we have to take note of the fact that there is a time gap of 1 to 2 years between the date of Section 4(1) notification in the other batch of appeals which we have disposed of to-day and the notification in the present case. Moreover, as already pointed out, in view of the development of the area by VUDA after acquiring the lands in 1977, the land values in the near-by localities of Pedda Waltair revenue village would have gone up. Taking all these plus and minus factors into account, we are of the view that the market value of the acquired land can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 16/- per square yard. The claimants will, however, be not entitled to the additional amount u/s 23(1-A) in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , as the award was passed on 31-3-1981 i.e., before the crucial date.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeals filed by the LAO except in regard to the additional amount u/s 23(1-A) and we allow the appeals filed by the claimants partly. The decrees of the lower Court shall stand modified accordingly. No costs.