Peesapati Venkataramana Bhasyakacharyulu vs The Land Acquisition Officer

G. Radhakrishna Rao, Adv.

This is an appeal preferred by the second petitioner having been aggrieved by the compensation at Rs. 20,000/- per acre granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram in O.P. No. 67/1984 on his file.

Land measuring about Ac. 4.13 cents in S.No. 70/3 etc., was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. Section 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 8-12-1983. Possession was taken on 18-2-1984. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 2-3-1984 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. On reference P.Ws. 1 to 4 were exmined on behalf of the petitioner and Exs. A-l to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, M.R.O. Veeravasaram was examined as R.W. 1 and Exs.B-1 to B-10 were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the lower Court passed an order on 31-8-1988 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. It is against that, the claimants have filed the appeal claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre.

Ex. A-4 is the registration extract of the sale deed in respect of 00.04 cents of land situate in R.S. No. 514/7 which was sold for Rs. 7,000/- As no one connected with the document was examined, as rightly observed by the Lower Court, this document cannot be taken into consideration to assess the value of the land that was acquired in this case Ex. A. 5 is another sale deed for 00.05 cents, of land, dated 9-5-82. Vendor under this document is examined as P.W.4. The land under Ex. A5 was sold for Rs. 6000/-. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.4, it does not inspire confidence. The person who is in dire necessity may purchase the land at a higher rate. Even otherwise, the sale deeds of small extents of lands cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the value of large extents of land. This Court also took the same view in a recently pronounced Judgment dated 19-4-1993 in A.S. No. 1565/91 and A.S. 2087/91. In Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, the Supreme Court also held that the transaction in regard to smaller property cannot be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property The other document that is available is Ex.A-1 which is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 25-9-1983 whereunder, P.W. 2 purchased 00.82 cents of land situated in R.S. No. 71/2D for a sum of Rs. 24,600/- This works out to nearly Rs. 30,000/- per acre. We therefore, feel that in May, 1993 the rate prevailing was round about Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Admittedly Section 4(1) notification was published on 8-12-1983. Ex. A-l sale deed was obtained just three months prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification. We therefore, hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Even if the 00.82 cents of land covered under Ex. A-l sale deed has been converted into house plots and the area is reduced by 25%, still for the reduced area, the consideration that would be paid will be at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre, Likewise, for the Ac. 4.17 cents of land acquired in this case, the same analogy can be applied. Normally, when a land is acquired for house sites, one has to look into the rules governing the approval of the layout depending upon the situation of the land. It is an undisputed fact that a large extent of Ac. 4.13 cents of land was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to scheduled castes and other weaker sections. Even after deducting certain percentage for developmental purposes, the market value fixed by the lower court i.e., at Rs. 20,000/- per acre appears to be on the lower Side. Considering Ex. A-l sale deed and the nature of the land acquired, we feel that the market value of the land can be fixed at Rs. 30,000/per acre, which appears to be reasonable and justifiable.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.