AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Radhakrishna Rao, J.
Dry land measuring Ac.4-97 cents covered by S.Nos. 2 and 2A and 438 situated at Decharam village, Mothkur Taluq, was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Backward Classes and Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. Claimants 1 to 3 are the persons that are interested in the land that was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer, by taking into account the sale statistics and the potential values of the land, awarded compensation at Rs. 5,200/- for S.Nos. 2 and 2A and at Rs. 6,500/- for S.No. 438. Against that a reference has been made to the Civil Court at the instance of the claimants u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, ''the Act''). In that reference, before (he Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, 9 witnesses were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-8 and Exs. B-1 to B-4 and X-1 were marked. The learned Subordinate Judge taking into consideration the dale of selection of the land for acquisition as, 27-7-1982 and the date of the Notification'' u/s 4(1) of the Act as 19-12-1982, rejected the sale deeds and the agreement of sales that have been produced on behalf of the claimants. He also found that the valuation that has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is perfectly correct after disbelieving Exs. A-1, A-2 and Ex.X-1. Originally the claimants claimed at Rs. 10/- per Square Yard. But during the evidence it has come to light that they arc expecting only Rs. 5/- per Sq. Yard. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, the claimants have now filed this appeal.
It is well settled that reasonable market value as on the date of the Notification has to be fixed either by the Tribunal or subsequently on reference by the Civil Court. The crucial date for fixing the reasonable compensation is the date of the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In this case the publication was made on 29-12-1982. The sale deeds that were relied upon by the claimants are Ex. A-l dated 25-8-1982, Ex.A-2 dated 24-8-1982 and Ex. X-1 dated 24th August, 1982. All these three sale deeds are for small extents i.e., about 100 sq. Yards and registered just prior to the date of the Section 4(1) Notification.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that the Court below ought not to have disbelieved the documents. Exs. A-1, A-2 and X-1 and the reasoning given by the learned Subordinate Judge that the claimants have got knowledge about the acquisition and therefore executed the documents, cannot be accepted. The award is only an offer and the sale statistics ''considered by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be (taken into consideration by the Civil Court unless and until they were marked and proved. Similarly, if The claimants filed any documents and proved those documents, it cannot be said that the Civil Court has to accept them without considering the attendant circumstances under which those documents have been brought into existence. The facts that led to the acquisition of the lands are not in dispute. In the award it is mentioned that the land itself was selected for acquisition on 26-7-1982. It shows that subsequent to the date of selection only these three sale deeds with small extents of lands must have been pressed into servie for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. It is common knowledge that before The issuance of the Section 4(1) Notification, a minimum six months'' time, though not one year, is required for the purpose-of as certaining the correct area. The selection of the area and the survey that has to be made and the identification of the persons in possession, of the land and other particulars are relevant for the purpose of issuing the Notification. For the purpose of survey and for the collection of the data, definitely the concerned authorities will have to visit the village and it cannot be said that prior to the issue of the Notification, the claimants have no knowledge of the acquisition. The execution of the documents with small extents of lands within four months prior to the date of the publication of the Section 4(1) Notification clearly demonstrates the intention of the claimants to bring into existence these sale deeds under a mistaken belief that the sale deeds will be taken for granted for the purpose of fixing the compensation. Several instances have come to the notice of this Court wherein sale deed with small extents of lands for higher consideration are pressed into service just prior to the date of the Notification. To substantiate their plea, the claimants, in this case, have also produced the agreements of sale and they were marked as Exs. A-3 to A-8. These documents on plain papers can easily be brought into existence at any time. The agreements show that the rate is Rs. 10/- per Sq. Yard., whereas the sale deeds show Rs. 5/- per Sq. Yard. The sale deed must be in consonance with the terms of the agreement of sale. It was suggested to one of the claimants that they have got knowledge about the acquisition of their lands and, therefore, they have fabricated these documents. A person who creates the documents with a view to make a wrongful gain cannot be said to be a reliable person and his evidence cannot be relied upon and it cannot be said, under any stretch of imagination, to be a genuine transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. No doubt, the lands acquired are agricultural lands situated very near to the village. When steps are being taken for acquisition, no seller will come forward to purchase a small bit of land for higher price'' unless he is a willing or co-operative seller to submit himself to give evidence in the manner suggested by the land owner.
4, In this case, P.W. 1 sold the land to Narsi Reddy. P.W. 2 sold the land to Madireddy Ramaiah and P.W. 3 sold his land to Gandla Sathaiah, who is examined as P.W. 4 and he is also the scribe of Exs. A-3 lo A-8. So all the three claimants have sold these lands consisting of small extents only. Whenever the claimants have brought into existence sale deeds of small extents that too just prior to the date of the Notification, these documents have to be scrutinised very cautiously and they should not be accepted as genuine for transaction in a routine manner. It is common knowledge that at least six months'' time though not one year is required for purpose of preparing the Section 4(1) Notification. The learned Subordinate Judge has correctly assessed the credibility of the documents Exs. A-!, A-2 and Ex. X-l and also the evidence that has been let in in support (hereof. It is a classic case where the claimants executed sale deeds for small extents for higher consideration and in support thereof fabricated agreements of sale on plain papers for higher consideration at Rs. JO/- per Sq. Yard and they have also examined the persons to connected with the sales to prove those documents. In these circumstances, the Court must take every care and caution in evaluating the evidence available on record. It must also be noted here that the Government is not a party to these sale deeds and it is very difficult for the Government to prove whether it is a genuine sale or not.
Sri Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, contended that in the absence of production of any evidence on behalf of the Referring Officer or the Government, the evidence produced by the appellants has to be accepted without any hesitation. In land acquisition cases, the claimant cannot gain any advantage on account of the non-examination of any witnesses on behalf of the Referring Officer. It is the claimants, who are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, that have got the matter referred to the Civil Court. The burden lies on the claimants to substantiate their claim for enhancement. In this case the oral evidence that has been adduced in proof of the documents has to be excluded in toto. No cogent and convincing evidence is forthcoming in this case to arrive at a conclusion (hat what has been granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is not correct. The question before the Court is whether the enhancement that has been claimed by the appellants is just and correct and whether they are able to prove it by adducing sufficient evidence.
It is also to be noted here that the witnesses have stated that commercial crops are being raised in the lands acquired. It is not enough if they say that the yield from the lands is from Rs. 3000/- to Rs.4000/-. The Government maintains cultivation accounts and exaggerated figures with regard to the income cannot be accepted unless their statements have been tested with reference to the cultivation accounts and other particulars maintained by the Government as per the Rules and Regulations. It is not a case where the Government is not maintaining the cultivation accounts. The nature of the crop and the yield derived therefrom also find a place in the revenue records. When the revenue records with regard to the nature of the cultivation and the yield are not available, it is not desirable or permissible to take into account the exaggerated version of the claimants as the burden lies on them to substantiate their claim not only by adducing oral evidence but also by producing the documentary evidence that is available in the public office. If commercial crops are raised they have to be sold generally in big markets under receipts and non-production of any receipts from the Market Committee or concerned authorities and non-production of the cultivation accounts cast any amount of doubt about the statements made by the claimants regarding the income that is being derived at from the lands where there is no assured supply of water from Govt. Service at Rs. 3,000/- or Rs. 4,000/- per acre.
Filing of only three registered documents for small extents of lands with higher consideration under Exs. A-1, A-2 and X-l and non-filing of any registered sale deeds within a period of three years preceding the date of the Notification or any sale deeds subsequent to the Notification clearly indicates that these documents have been fabricated and brought into existence with agreements of sale of anterior date on some plain papers, Exs. A-3 to A-8. If old sale deeds for at least three years preceding or subsequent to the sale deeds arc produced, then there is every possibility to test the genuineness of the transaction and the consideration paid for these small extents. Therefore, the Court must come to the conclusion that the claimants do not want to come forward with a reliable or true evidence. The claimants have got knowledge of the acquisition of their lands and therefore they have fabricated the documents and the available material that has been produced by them is not sufficient to support their claim for enhancement of the compensation. When the burden of proof rests on the claimants and no material has been placed before the Court in support of their claim for enhancement and the material that has been placed by them is insufficient and not. acceptable, the Court is bound to accept the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants who failed to substantiate their plea for enhancement cannot be allowed to contend that what has been claimed by them for enhancement is reasonable as the Referring Officer has not adduced any evidence. After a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that Exs. A-1, A-2 and X-.I have been brought into existence by the claimants about four months prior to the date of the Notification after having knowledge about the acquisition of their lands only to claim higher compensation and in support of their case they created the agreements of sales Exs. A-3 to A-8 on plain papers and also adduced oral evidence which is found to be not acceptable. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement of the compensation than what has been granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. seen grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the Court below.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
The claimants are entitled to all the benefits of the Amending Act 68/84 with regard to higher rates of solatium and interest.
Appeal dismissed.