AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The appellants in MFAs. 1948/2008, 1949/2008, 1951/2008 & 1952/2008 are the landlords-claimants in LAC. Nos. 05/2007, 09/2007, 08/2007 and 11/2007 respectively. Though these Miscellaneous First Appeals are posted for admission today, by consent of both the learned Counsel for the parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal. We have heard these matters at length and disposed of the same on merits.
All these appeals arise out of the common Judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Reference Court and the facts ere same and questions of law are one and the same. Therefore, they have been clubbed together and disposed of by this common Judgment.
The Appellants, who are owners of the required lands, being not satisfied with the market value determined, have challenged the legality, correctness and methodology adopted by the learned reference Judge in determining the market value of the acquired lands, in the Common Judgment dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raichur in LAC. Nos. 05/2007, 09/2007, 08/2007 and 11/2007, have preferred the present appeals seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired lands by modifying the impugned Judgment and awards and prayed for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 6,36,000/- per acre to Rs. 23,94,099/- per acre with all consequential statutory benefits as provided under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter called as the LA Act is short).
The facts of these cases in nutshell are that, the subject lands have been acquired by the 1st respondent vide notification dated 15.06.2006 under LA Act for the purpose of construction of 500 bed hospital at Raichur, The 2nd respondent is the beneficiary of the said acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 47,140/- per acre. Consequent upon the protest petition filed by the landlord-appellants herein u/s 18(1) of the LA Act, the references were made to the Civil Court to determine the correct market value of the lands. The learned Judge of the Reference Court has adjudicated the reference cases in LAC. No. 05/2007. 09/2007, 08/2007 and 11/200 & passed the impugned Judgment.
In support of their claim, the landlords-claimants have examined one V. Tayanna S/o. Hampayya (deceased appellant in MFA. 1948/2008) as PW. 1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.50 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C-11. On behalf of the respondents, no rebuttal evidence of either documentary or oral evidence was adduced to show the correct market value of the acquired lands and to disprove the claim of the Appellants do not reflect the correct market value to be accepted for quantifying the compensation on the basis of sales statistics. The learned Judge of the Reference court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,36,000/- per acre as against Rs. 47.140/- determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Being not satisfied with the market value of the acquired lands determined by the Reference Court, the landowners, who have lost their lands have preferred the above appeals seeking for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 6,36,000/- to Rs. 23,94,099/- per acre by re-determining the market value of the acquired lands. The particulars of lands acquired, extent of land, compensation awarded by the LAO., and the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court are furnished in the following chart:
Description of Lands Acquired:
_______________________________________________________________ Sl MFA LAC SY. EXTENT Compen Compens No. No. NO NO sation ation awarded awarded by LAO by Ref. court _______________________________________________________________ A - G Rs. Rs. 1 1948/2008 05/07 214/A 00-35 47140/- 636000 214/AA 02-11 _______________________________________________________________ 2 1949/2008 09/07 214/AA 03-00 47140/- 636000 _______________________________________________________________ 3 1951/2008 08/07 214/A 02-38 47140/- 636000 0-02 (PK) _______________________________________________________________ 4 1952/2008 11/07 214/A 02-38 47140/- 636000 _______________________________________________________________
We have heard Sri. Shivaraj N. Arali, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri. S.S. Kumman, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the 1st respondent-State and Sri. Prakash Yalli learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and perused the material evidence on record to examine the rival legal contentions and answer the points that would arise for our consideration.
Sri. Shivaraj N. Arali, learned Counsel submits that, the learned Judge of the Court below erred in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants in proper perspective; that the court below has failed to notice that the lands of the appellants which are acquired for the purpose of construction of 500 bed hospital situated at Raichur-Hyderabad High-way surrounded by Medical college, APMC yard, Allama Prabhu Housing Colony, Teachers Colony, S.P. Office, Civil hospital, schools, temples and various commercial buildings. Therefore, he contended that the market value determined by the Reference Court is too meager and requires to be enhanced. Further, he contented that as could be seen from the conversion order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Raichur in respect of the land comprised in Sy. No. 213/A of Potugal village, which is a part and parcel of the acquisition notification, the conversation charges fixed for the same was Rs. 21,778/- per acre. Therefore, the lands acquired are situated within the limits of Municipal area and hence, the learned Judge of the court below failed to appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land and erroneously granted meager compensation; that, as per the seven registered sale deeds registered much prior to acquisition of the lands in question which are produced and marked at Ex.P.41, P.42. P.43, P.44, P.45. P.46 & P.47 under which the sites adjacent to the acquired land are sold at the rate of Rs. 51/- 64/-, 41/-. 51/-, 61/-, 51/- and 52/- per square foot respectively. Despite such documentary evidence, the learned Judge of the Reference Court, having held that the said sale deeds are the relevant documents and basis to assess/determine the market value, erred in taking the least rate of the above sale deeds i.e. Rs. 41/- per square feet and it ought to have taken the highest rate amongst those documents i.e., Rs. 64/- per square feet as depicted in the sale deed produced and marked at Ex.P. 42. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs. 27.87,840/- per acre.
Learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the court below has erred in deducting 20% from out of the market value, considering the distance of the acquired land that of the lands sold under Ex.P.41 to P.47; that, the learned Judge of the Reference Court erred in further deducting 10% towards conversion charges as against the rate of conversion charges prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order at Ex.P.2. wherein the rate of conversion charges is fixed at Rs. 25.000/- per acre; that the learned Judge of the Court, below has erred in again deducting 53% from out of the market value towards basic amenities. Since the total extent of land acquired is 27 acres, only 20% should have been deducted towards basic amenities, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through Lrs. and Others Vs. State of U.P., ; that the learned Judge of the Court below has failed to notice that the claimants-appellants being award winners for progressive farmers and they are solely depending upon the acquired land to eke out for their livelihood, the court below ought to have taken 13% escalation upon the estimated market value of the land while determining the market value. On these grounds, he has prayed for modification of the award passed by the Reference court and enhance the compensation payable to the acquired land.
Per contra. Sri. S.S. Kumman, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently contended that since the lands in question are non-agricultural land, the learned Judge of the Reference Court is justified in adopting methodology while determining the market value of the acquired land and on appreciation of the material evidence on record, in proper perspective. The Court below has rightly determined the market value of the land and therefore, there is no illegality in the Judgment passed by the court below and he has prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by the claimant-appellants.
Sri. Prakash Yalli, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent argued in support of the Judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court.
Having regard to the above mentioned rival legal contentions urged by the respective parties, the points that arise for our consideration are;
i) Whether the Reference Court is justified in taking the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 41-00 per square feet for determination of the market value?
ii) Whether the Reference Court is justified in deducting 20% from out of the market value towards distance charges?
iii) Whether the Court below justified in deducting 10% from out of the market value towards developmental/conversion charges?
iv) Whether the Reference Court is justified in deducting 53% from out of the market value towards the amenities like road, park school etc? (Developmental Charges)
v) Whether the claimant-appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation, if so, what extent?
Re. Point No (i): Before adverting to this point, it is just and necessary to refer the documents viz., two registered sale deed dated 26.12.2005 (Ex.P.42) and sale deed dated 30.12.2005 (Ex.P.43) which are made available to us by the learned Counsel for the appellants for our perusal. On perusal of the first document (Ex.P.42) which pertains to sale of plot No. 18 (Municipal No. 12-6-700/18) measuring 60'' � 40'' formed in land bearing Survey Nos. 343/A. 351, 352/3. 352/4 & 352/5 in the layout called as "Allamprabhu Housing Colony", Raichur, it is seen that the said site has been sold for valuable consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/- at the rate of Rs. 64/- per square feet. Ex.P.43 is another sale deed dated 30.12.2005 pertains to plot No. 205 measuring 9 � 12 meters (30'' � 40'') formed in land bearing Survey Np.314 situated in Srinivasnagar layout, which is a layout approved by the Town Planning Authority, Raichur vide its resolution No. 50 Dt. 30.06.1966. The said plot has been sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 65,000/- as determined by the Sub-Registrar) at the rate of Rs. 54.50 paise per square feet. The stamp duty paid in each of these two sale transactions was Rs. 13,930/- and Rs. 5,865/- respectively.
Admittedly, the lands in question were notified for acquisition on 15-06-2006 i.e., six months after the registration of the aforesaid two sites, Further, the land comprised in those two sale deeds and the acquired lands are situated in the same village Pottugal. But, the only difference is that, the plots sold under those two sale deeds have been formed after obtaining conversion from the Deputy Commissioner and after approval of the Town Planning Authority, but whereas the acquired land are not converted land. The Reference Court while discussing on point No. 2 in paragraphs-13 to 26 of its Judgment, with reference to various Judgments of this Court and the Apex Court held that the certified copies of the sale deeds pertains to adjacent lands could be admissible, while determining the market value of the land and therefore, the court has to consider the valuation on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the claimant/appellants. When the claimant-appellants produced registered sale deeds of the adjacent land, the Reference Court has no other option except to accept the same for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. Despite the above the reference Court has held that registered sale deeds produced by the claimant-appellants are the basis for determination of the market value, the Reference Court has grossly erred in not accepting the rate mentioned in Ex.P.42 & Ex.P.43.
The Reference Court in paragraph-22 of its Judgment has made elaborate discussion about the registered sale deeds. Since, those sale deeds are the relevant documents and guiding principles to determine the market value of the acquired land by the reference court, we deem it proper to extract the dates of sale deeds, dimension of the sites sold, sale consideration paid therein and the rate per square foot chronologically, which would ultimately throw some light to determine the market value of the acquired land in the present case. The particulars are as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________ Exhi Date of sale Dimension Sale Rate per Bits. deeds of sites consideration square feet amount _________________________________________________________________________ P.41 05.01.2004 30 � 40 65.000-00 Rs. 51/- _________________________________________________________________________ P.44 22.01.2004 40 � 60 1,40,000-00 Rs. 51/- _________________________________________________________________________ P.45 27.04.2005 30 � 40 1,55,000-00 Rs. 61/- _________________________________________________________________________ P.46 12.05.2005 40 � 60 62,000-00 Rs. 51/- _________________________________________________________________________ P.42 26.12.2005 40 � 60 1,55,000-00 Rs. 64/- _________________________________________________________________________ P.43 30.12.2005 30 � 40 50,000-00 Rs. 54.50 (65,000-00) _________________________________________________________________________ P.47 09.10.2007 40 � 60 1,40,000-00 Rs. 52/- _________________________________________________________________________
On perusal of the above sale deeds, it is seen that the sale deeds produced and marked at Ex. P.42 & P.43 are pertaining to the adjacent/close proximity sites with the acquired lands and therefore, they could be made as the basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. As could be seen from the findings recorded by the Reference Court in paragraph-26 of its Judgment, the Reference Court has held that, in the sale deed, the concerned Sub-Registrar has determined the value of the site at Rs. 65,000/- for the plot sold under Ex.P.43 but considering the rate mentioned in the sale deed at Rs. 50,000/-, the court below has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the site sold under said deed was Rs. 41/- per square feet instead of Rs. 54.50 paise (65.000/- 1200 = Rs. 54.50). The plot/site sold under sale deed Ex.P.42 was for Rs. 1,55,000/- (@ Rs. 64/- per square feet). When the acquired lands comprised in the same village which are adjacent/close proximity with the acquired land are sold at the rate of Rs. 64-00 per square feet, that too six months prior to the acquisition notification, there was no legal impediment for the Reference Court to accept the same to determine the market value of the acquired lands. There was no reason for the reference Court not to accept the rates mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P.42 where under, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 64/- per square feet. On the contrary, the Court below has erred in placing reliance on Ex.P.43 to determine the market value and consequently wrongly assessed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 41/- per square feet. Thus, the sale deed produced by the claimant-appellants at Ex.P.42 would be made as the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land. Accepting the said registered document, we hold that market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 27,87,840/- per acre (43,560 square feet (one acre) � Rs. 64/- per square feet = Rs. 27,87,840/-). Accordingly, we answer point No (i) in favour of the appellants.
Re. Point No. (ii): It is the specific case of the claimant-appellants all throughout that, the lands acquired are surrounded by ''Allamaprabhu Housing Colony'', ''Srinivasanagar'' (layout approved by the Town Planning Authority, Raichur), ''Shanthi Industries'', ''Bandari Industry'', ''Agricultural Produces Marketing Committee'' and ''OPEC Hospital''. To ascertain the truth or otherwise of the above facts, we have carefully scrutinised the city map produced and marked as Ex.P.50 which is a public document, issued by the Commissioner Urban Development Authority, Raichur, which is made available to us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On perusal of the same, we find that the lands notified in this case i.e., Survey No. 214 is well within the Municipal Boundary, surrounded by the layouts approved by the Town Municipal Corporation, industries and other Government Offices mentioned above. Further, the plots/sites sold under two registered sale deeds (Ex.P.42 & P.43) are situated in Sy. Nos. 343/A, 351. 352 (Allama Prabhu Layout) and Sy. No. 314 (Srinivasa Colony) which are in close proximity of the acquired land and they are adjacent to each other. When the claimants-appellants have produced the city Map as Ex.P.50 issued by the Commissioner for Urban Development Authority, the Reference court ought to have considered the same and there was no reason to overlook the same. But for the reasons best known it, the court below has failed to consider this important document which shows that the lands acquired are within the Municipal boundary and adjacent to the layouts approved by the Town Planning Authority. On the contrary, the court below attached much importance to the certified copy of Map of Potugal village rather than giving importance to the City Map prepared by the Urban Development Authority. The Map (Ex.P.50) issued by the Urban Development Authority, Raichur clearly reveals that the acquired land Survey No. 214 is located well within the boundary of Municipal Corporation and close to the APMC., yard and OPEC hospital. Therefore, we are of the view that the court below has grossly erred in reducing 20% amount from out of the market value determined, towards distance charges on the ground that the acquired lands are situated far away from the plot sold under Ex.P.42 & P.43. Accordingly, we answer point No. (ii).
Point No. (iii): This point is also required to be answered in favour of the appellants for the simple reason that, as could be seen from the endorsement/letter dated 02.07.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner to one Sri. S.B. Krishna Murthy, Advocate, Raichur, the copy of which is made available to us and which is taken on record, clearly reveals that the Deputy Commissioner has clarified that, the conversion charges chargeable to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural land situated in Potugal village is Rs. 21,778/- per acre. Therefore, the findings of the court below deducting 10% from out of the market value determined towards conversion charges cannot be sustained. Hence., we hold that the conversion charges deductible from out of the market value determined would be Rs. 21,778/- per acre and not �t 10% as held by the Court below. Accordingly, we answer point No iii in favour of the claimants-appellants.
Re. Point No. (iv): Admittedly, in the case on hand, vast extent of land (more than 27 acres) has been acquired for construction of 500 bed hospital and the acquisition is not for the purpose of formation of any residential layout. While constructing the hospital, establishment of school, temples, grounds, commercial complex and other civic amenities need not arise. It is true that deduction for development charges ought to be adequately provided for, but it varies from place to place, area to area and the amount of developments that are required to be carried out and thus, there cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towards development charges. In the instant case, the purpose of acquisition of land is to construct the hospital. Therefore we are of the view that deduction of 53% made by the court below towards development charges is on the higher side. We make it to 50% towards development charges from out of the market value determined by this Court on the basis of computable land, which would be the reasonable amount and the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answer point No. (iv).
Re. Point No. (v): In view of our above findings on point Nos. (i) to (iv) we hold that the Reference Court is not justified in assessing/determining the market value/compensation payable for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,36,000/- per acre. For the reasons stated supra, accepting the rate mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 26.12.2005 (Ex.P.42) where under the plot/site formed in the land adjacent to the acquired lands has been sold at the rate of Rs. 64/- per square feet, taking the said document as the basis for re-determination of market value, we hold that the claimant-appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 13,83,032/- rounded of to Rs. 13,83,000/- per acre (43,560 -square feet per acre) � Rs. 64 = 27.87.840 Rs. 21,778 (Conversion charges) = 27,66.062 Rs. 13,83,030 (50% development charges) = Rs. 13,83,032/- rounded of to Rs. 13,83.000/-).
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court is not justified in determining the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 6,36,000/- per acre and consequently, the same is enhanced and the appeals filed by the claimant-appellants are entitled to allowed in part. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
Appeals are allowed in part. In modification of the Judgment and awards dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Raichur in LAC. Nos. 05/2007, 09/2007, 08/2007 and 11/2007, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants for the acquired lands is enhanced from Rs. 6,36,000/- to Rs. Rs. 13,83,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs eighty three thousand only), per acre. However, the findings of the Court below, as regards the rate of interest, solatium and other statutory benefits shall remain undisturbed with costs including the court fee payable upon the enhanced compensation. The claimant-appellants shall pay the requisite court fee on the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from today for which the Appellants are liable to be paid by the respondents.
Appellants are also entitled to costs of these proceedings.