JUDGMENT
1. A. S. No. 216 of 1982 is filed by the State Government against O.P. No. 15 of 1979 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Different claimants have filed different appeals against the same judgment contending that the compensation granted by the District Judge is too low.
2. Two separate Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (‘The Act’for brevity) have issued for acquisition of land measuring about Ac. 33.12 cents and Ac. 88 cents situate at Moolasagaram village within the Municipal limits of Nandyal town for the purpose of Sreenivasanagar Co-operative House Building Society at Nandyal, on a requisition made by the said Society on 26-10-1971. Possession of the entire land covered by the two Notifications was taken on 13-1-1975. The Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, by his award dated 10-10-1975 granted uniform compensation at Rs. 13,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, some of the land owners requested him to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, claiming compensation at Rs. l,500/- per a cent. Some have claimed at Rs. 4,000/- per a cent. In all 84 claimants have filed O.P. No. 15 of 1979 before the II
Additional District Judge, Kurnool. In support of their case the claimants have examined 21 witnesses and marked Exts. B-1 to A-17.
3. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are teachers who purchased Ac. 0-53 cents and Ac. 0-60 cents respectively under Exs. A-1 and A-2 for the purpose of construction of houses in the year 1976 and sold the same after dividing it into plots. P.W. 3 is a Co-operative Sub-Registrar who executed the sale deed Ex. A-3 dated 4-10-1978 for the purpose of T.T. D. Kalyana Mandapam. The land is of an extent of Ac. 1-30 cents abutting Srinivasa Nagar. P.W. 4 is the President of the Merchants Cooperative House Building Society, Nandyal. This Society purchased 13 acres of land to the east of Atkakur-Koilkuntla road at a distance of 2000 Feet. This land was purchased from 20 or 21 persons under Exs. A-4 to A-7 in the year 1977 @ Rs. 39,000/- per acre. P.W. 5 is the Manager of Srinivasanagar Co-operative House Building Society. He filed Exs. A-8 and A-9 which are topographical detailed plans of the colony. He also filed Exs. A-10 to A-12 which are the registration extracts of sale deeds and Ex. A-13, certified copy of the sale certificate relating to comparable sales near the land acquired. R.W. 5 is the President of Padmasali Sangham, Nandyal. He purchased Ac. 0-91 cents in S. No. 794/2 under a registered sale deed dated 12-12-1973 for a consideration of rs. 7,000/ – Ex. B-8 is the original sale deed. This land is at the entrance of Srinivasanagar Colony. R.W. 9 is an Upper Division Clerk in the Sub-Collector’s Office, Nandyal and he produced Award No. 8/75 dated 19-9-1975 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in connection with the acquisition of 30 cents of land in S. No. 616/2 in Nandyal town for the purpose of a Post Office near the Railway Station. It is marked as Ex. B-9, R.W. 10 is the owner of an adjacent land. He sold 3 cents of his land in S.No. 761 at Rs. 1000/- per cent to one Bali Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 18-9-1976 under Ex. B-10. He also sold 2 cents of land at the same rate under Ex. B-11, Exs. B-12 and B-13 are the certified extracts of sale deeds. R.W. 13 is a business man. He purchased 4 cents of land from Kasubai on 25-3-1974 under Ex. B-13 for Rs. 10,000/-.
R. W. 15 offered to pay Rs. 3,000/- per cent of land in the year 1969 from the father of claimant No. 48. R.W. 16 is examined to speak about the market value of the land acquired between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 2500/-per a cent. R.W. 18 owns 50 acres of land. One Kummari Narayana had mortgaged 4 cents of his land in Nandyal town to him under a registered mortgage deed. He sold the said under Ex. B-14 at Rs. 2,000/- per a cent. The other witnesses i.e. R.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 21 are some of the claimants. R.W. 17 is the son-in-law of claimant No. 22.
4. On a consideration of these sale deeds, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the sale deeds that were produced will not give any reasonable basis to arrive at a just compensation and he rejected them either on the ground that they are small extents or that they are far away or that they cannot be taken as comparable sales. However, he based his conclusions for awarding of compensation relying upon Ex. B-7. He ultimately came to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired would be Rs. 300/- per a cent in the year 1966 as already found by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex. B-7. He further observed that in all fairness, the Land Acquisition Officer should have treated the land acquired on the same analogy considering its potential value and determined the compensation with reference to the above said land. In paragraph 58 of the order, the learned Judge observed that Ex. B-7 affords a reasonable basis and forms the comparable sale for fixing the market value at Rupees 30,000/- per acre in the year 1966 and after considering the observation of the Land Acquisition Officer that there would be 10% appreciation in the value of the land every year, the learned Judge observed as follows:
“I am of the opinion that the rate of appreciation evaluation by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. 10% per year, would afford reasonable basis for fixing the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification. Calculating at the rate of 10% per annum from 1967 to 1971, the market value of the land acquired in any case would not have exceeded Rs. 45,000/- per acre or Rs. 450/-per cent as on the date of notification i.e.
29-6-1972.
5. With regard to the land belonging to claimant No. 48 who was examined as Rs.*. 19, in A.S. No. 778/3 in an extent of 40 cents of land, the learned Judge fixed the market value of the said land at Rs. 1500/ – per cent. He filed a separate appeal being A.S. No. 143 of 1982 which will be dealt with separately as the location, the situation of the land or the necessity for acquisition of that land is entirely different from the other lands.
6. Now coming to the facts of the case in A.S. No. 227 of 1982, the land in question is situate within the Municipal limits of Nandyal town and it is included in the Town Planning Scheme long prior to the acquisition. The land is between Atmakur-Koil-kuntla road and Nandyal Kurnool road. Ex. B-2 is to town map of Nandyal Municipality. Atmakur Koilkuntla road and Naa-dyal-kurnool road pass from North to South. Adjacent to Atmakur-Koilkuntla road there is a road belt of about 100 to 150 feet through the length of the road with all built up area on either side, comprising of cinema theatre, rice mills, saw mills, hotel, lodgings, State Bank of India and its staff quarters etc. Behind this road belt lies the land acquired on one side. Similarly on the Nandyal-Kurnool road there is a housing complex called Sanjeevanagar Colony built up about 20 years back abutting the road and adjoining this colony there is the western boundary of the land acquired. The Northern boundary of the acquired land abuts the Municipal High School and its play ground and residential houses beyond which lies the old Nandyal Town. To the south of the acquired land, there is some more agricultural land and beyond that land there is the Polytechnic College and Arts College. To the south-east of the acquired land, there is taluk office, total Courts and other Government offices. To the North-West, at a distance of two miles, there is railway station complex. From this topography it can be said that this Land in question has got all the potentialities of a house site and in fact the land was acquired for the purpose of building houses by the Sreenivasanagar Co-operative Society. The evidence on record also discloses that
the very purpose for which the land was acquired has already been executed and many houses have come up and so the value of the prices of the land have gone in that locality. Prior to the acquisition these are agricultural lands and crops were being raised. In the case of acquisition of agricultural lands for residential purposes, the value of the land has to be assessed not only taking into account as an agricultural land but also the use to which it is reasonably put in future.
7. As early as 1939, the Privy Council in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathi Raju and R.D.O. Vizagpatnam, AIR 1939 PC 98 laid down the principles for awarding compensation. Since the land has already been acquired, the potential value of the land for being converted into house sites cannot be ruled out in view of its location as seen from Ex. B-2 and the reasoning given by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award Ex. A-17 in considering the just compensation for the lands acquired as contemplated under Section 23(1) of the Act, by taking into consideration the market value that was prevailing as on the date of the Notification. The market value means the price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller having due regard to the existing conditions with all its advantages and its potential possibilities for carrying out the scheme for which the land is compulsorily acquired. In recent years, as observed by this Court in several decisions, as the public are aware of the decisions of this Court and the provisions of the Act certain persons, with a view to get higher compensation are bringing out sale deeds for small extents of lands with higher consideration. Any sale deed for a small extent with higher consideration which has been brought into existence in between the period from the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings till the date of publication Section 4(1) Notification has to be considered with great care and caution and normally if the Court comes to the conclusion, taking into consideration the disparity of prices mentioned therein when compared with the previous sales in the locality, it is always desirable to eschew those sale deeds as they cannot afford reasonable basis for fixing the value of the
land acquired as the law enjoins that comparable sales alone have to be taken into consideration. In this case, as post-notification sales also have been filed, they cannot be ignored altogether. The Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State, observed that post-Notification sales need not be ignored altogether in deciding the market value of the land acquired. Post-Notification sales are bona fide sales which have nothing to do with the acquisition and are not effected by the acquisition proceedings. In this case, the post-notification sales will be of use to arrive at a conclusion whether there was any steep increase of prices or whether the prices in the area are steady and the prices of the road side lands and interior lands are uniform or at variance or the same rates are being continued. It is only after the Land Ceiling Act has come into force, the prices of the lands started increasing. In urban areas it is after the Urban Land Ceiling Act’ came into force and particularly after 1980 the prices are started increasing rapidly.
8. With this background that has been mentioned above, we have to consider whether the claim of the claimants who have filed these appeals and cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation over and above Rs.45,000/- per acre that has been granted by the Court below is correct or whether the claim of the Government that the award of compensation of Rs.45,000/- per acre is on the higher side.
9. Apart from the oraPand documentary evidence, the crucial document that comes in the way of the Government is Ex. B-7. It is an order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in I. A. Nos. 127 to 133/72 and O. P. No. 43 of 1972. In that case, an extent of Ac. 5-77 cents of land covered by S. Nos. 834, 835/1, 835/2, 792/1, 792/3 and 793 situale within the Municipal limits of Nandyal town for providing playground to the Municipal Higher Secondary School, Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 28-1-1966. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Nandyal Municipality sent a copy of resolution of the Council by which it dropped certain lands out of the lands which they originally contemplated for acquisition. So a fresh publication was made in the Gazette
dated 7-9-1967 denotifying those Survey Numbers. All these lands are double crop wet lands. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 31-3-1972 fixed the compensation at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. On reference at the instance of the claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge taking into consideration Exs. B-3 and B-4 which are marked in this case and also the sale statistics furnished to the Award Ex. B-24 came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 30,000/-per acre i.e. Rs. 10,000/- more than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. No appeal has been filed against the said order and hence that order has become final. Since that order has become final and the land acquired in that O.P. is just abutting the land acquired in this case and the land acquired in that O.P. is of an extent of Ac. 5.77 cents, the learned Advocate General contends that the basis of the said award has to be rejected cannot be accepted. The basis of the valuation as found by a competent Court with regard to the neighbouring land which has become final has to be taken into consideration for determining the just compensation. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer may not serve as a basis to determine the compensation but the order passed by the Civil Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act which has become final definitely binds both parties with regard to the price that was prevailing in that area. As per the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in that O.P. the value that was prevailing in the year 1966 is Rs. 30,000/- per acre or Rs.300/- per a cent. Ex.A-10 is a registered sale deed dated 23-10-1969 under which agricultural land of 51 cents in S. No. 725/2 was sold for Rs. 5,000/- and it works out to Rs. 9.800/- per acre, i.e. Rs. 98/-per a cent. The Land Acquisition Officer also relied upon this document and calculated the depreciation in the value of the land at 10% from 1969 to 1971 and added that appreciation to the value and fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 13,000/- per acre. The learned Judge having taken this Ex. B-7 as the basis in the year 1966 found that 10% appreciation has to be given. With regard to the appreciation of the value of the land at
10%, both the Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Judge are uniform in their conclusions, but one took the sale immediately prior to the notification and the learned Judge look into consideration the order of the Court which has become final. With regard to the appreciation of the value it has to be seen that on a close scrutiny of these documents and the rates that have been mentioned therein it cannot be said that the rates were increasing by 10% every year and the conclusion of the Court below that there will be increase of rates by 10% every year is not correct particularly when sale deeds subsequent to the date of Notification reflected only lesser rates. Exs. B-3 to B-6 are the pre-notification sales relied upon by the claimants. R.W-. 14, the 19th claimant is the person that produced Exs. B-3 and B-4. The lands sold under Ex. B-3 are situate by the side of the road. He stated that on the date of Ex. B-3 he and claimant No. 21 purchased 9 cents of land in S.Nos. 760/1A for Rs.8,000/- from the vendor of Ex. B-3 under Ex. B-4 sale deed. The land covered by Ex. B-4 is at a distance of 150 feet from the land acquired. The land which is the subject-matter of Ex. B-7 is abutting Kurnool-Atmakur road and it was required for his saw-mill business. Because he felt it necessary he sold the land about 19 cents at Rs. 1,26,000/ – per acre. These transactions Exs. B-3 and B-4 do not reflect the true value for fixing the compensation for the land acquired. Therefore, Exs. B-3 and B-4 have been rightly rejected by the Court below as they do not reflect true basis. Under Ex. B-l 1 only 2 cents of land was sold for Rs. 2,000/-. It is an open site by the side of the road. People generally prefer to purchase the land on the road side and not the lands situate in the interior side. Therefore, it cannot be a sale guide to rely on these documents. If the land is acquired for purpose of construction of houses, we have to deduct the maximum extent of 40%. Therefore, these Exs. B-3 to B-6 have to be rejected. Then coming to Ex. B-8, R.W. 5 is the witness examined to prove this document. He is the President of Padmasali Sangham, Nandyal. In his capacity us the President of the Sangham, he purchased Ac. 0-91 cents in S.No. 794/2
under a registered sale deed dated 12-12-1973 for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. The land covered by Ex. B-8 is at the entrance of Sreenivasanagar Colony. According to R. W. 5, of all the colonies in Nandyal Town, Sanjeevanagar Colony and Sreenivasanagar Colony are the best colonies. This is a very small piece of land purchased one and half years after the notification. The value of this land works out to Rs. 700/- per a cent. As this site is adjacent to built up area and as it is at the entrance definitely it will fetch more value. The value must have been boosted up after coming to know of the fact that a colony will come up in the vicinity. The Court below rightly rejected this Ex. B-8 as it cannot serve as a basis to arrive at a just compensation in this case. After rejecting the sale deeds that were available prior to the Notification, we have to consider the post-notification sales. These post-notification sales are of the years 1976-77. So far as the documents relied upon by the Referring Officer are concerned, in none of the sale deeds, the rates that have been mentioned therein did not cross Rs. 400/- per a cent of land. P. Ws. I and 2 sold the land in S.No. 710 at Rs. 250/- per a cent. In the absence of any material placed by P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they have spent anything towards the formation of the roads, the Court below rejected these Exs. A-1 and A-2. In the other documents, the lands are sold from Rs. 240/-to Rs. 390/ – a cent. These sales are much after the date of the Notification in this case and small bits of land are sold under these documents. In any case, the value of the lands did not exceed Rs. 390/- a cent. If the rate of increase at 10% as evolved by the Court below is correct, then by 1976 or 1977 or 1978, the rate must have been more than double. Even after a lapse of 10 years, the increase is only from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 390/-only. That means Rs. 90/- has been increased as against the value fixed by the Court. There will be an element of guess work at the time of calculating the compensation, but there would not be any element of guess work with regard to the valuation that has been made or shown in the documents that were registered subsequent to the Notification. The basis for the increase as considered by the Land
Acquisition Officer is on the basis of the sales registered. But the Court below based its conclusion on the basis of the award which has become final where further steps have not been taken. The compensation must be determined by the reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect from a willing purchaser. The sentimental value of the land to vendor cannot betaken into consideration.
10. The petitioners have also relied upon the sale deeds Exs. B-10 to B-13. Only small extents of lands are sold and these lands are situate by the side of the main road and the learned Judge rightly discarded them on the ground that they are small extents and road side lands. As already pointed out above, Ex. B-8 also cannot be taken as a reasonable basis as it is a small extent. Therefore, on a scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court feels that Rs. 300/- per a cent can be taken as a basis for fixing the market value of the compensation for the lands acquired on the basis of Ex. B-7 which has become final. The Court below opined that there will be about 10% increase in the rates and it will come to Rs. 450/- per a cent. But in the case of sales for the purpose of housing accommodation, we feel that there will be 5% increase in the rates and it will come to Rs. 375/- per a cent. Even if we compare the subsequent innumerable sales that have been produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, still the fixation of Rs.375/- per a cent will be somewhat above the rates mentioned in the sale deeds relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. Particular mention has been made with regard to Exs. A-4 to A-7 by the learned counsel on both sides. But it must be remembered that the lands under Exs. A-4 to A-7 were purchased by the Merchants’ Co-operative House Building Society for construction of houses. The merchants want to purchase the land because of the growth of town and the growing needs of the Public for houses, otherwise the necessity to purchase that site does not arise. As the colony Sreenivasa Nagar Colony has already come up and as the city is growing that side only an extent of Ac. 13-00 has been purchased by the merchants. We cannot
compare the situation at that time. But what was the position that was prevailing at the time of the Notification has to be taken into consideration. On an analysis of the sale deeds Exs, A-4 to A-7, it is manifest that the market value during the years 1976 to 1978 comes to about Rs. 39,000/- per acre. We have to consider the value of the land during 1972 to 74 with reference to the value that is mentioned in Exs. A-4 to A-7. If we compare these sales, definitely the rate at the time of Notification will come to Rs. 375/- per a cent or Rs.37,500/- per acre which will be a reasonable market value. On the basis of the evidence of P. W. 5 it has been contended that they are willing to purchase the lands at Rs. 800 / – per a cent and at one time in the year 1978 the society sold the land at Rs. 1600/-per a cent out of which Rs. 170/- was shown as land value and the remaining Rs. 1430/-was taken towards value of the amenities. But we have to consider the potential value of the land as on the date of the notification. Simply because the land owner who sold this land is a small farmer, it cannot be said that he has to get more compensation. The guiding principle underlying Section 23 has to be followed with regard to the settled principle of law for fixing the just compensation. P.W. 5’s evidence shows that a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- has been spent for roads and repairs and office building was constructed at a cost of Rs. 75,000/-. A provision also has been made for 140 shops in the shopping complex besides 206 plots and the six (sic) of the plots varies from 5 cents to 12 cents. The society collected Rs. 800/- from each member inclusive of cost of land, value of the land for roads and amenities which works out to 40% of the total land and also cost of laying roads etc. The cost of raw material will always be at a lower rate and when it comes out from the factory in the shape of finished product, naturally it costs more. Here in this case the land was converted into house plots after laying roads etc. The sale of land by the Society at Rs. 1,600/- per cent in the year 1978 does not reflect the true market value.
11. On behalf of the claimants it is contended that there is difference in the market value of the lands on the road side
margins and the interior lands. The sale deeds filed by the claimants indicate vast difference between the lands on the road side margin and the interior lands and the difference is about 50%.
12. Now coming to the sale deeds, Exs.A-3 and A-11, the land of an extent of Ac-30 cents under Ex. A-3 in S.Nos. 730 and 731 was sold at Rs. 32,000/- and the value comes to Rs. 24,600/- per acre. This land was purchased in October, 1978 for the purpose of Kalyana Mandapam by the Tirumala Tiru-pati Devastanam. Ex. A-11 is dated 18-9-1978. An extent of 52 cents was purchased by the Devasthanam for the same purpose at Rs. 12,500/- which works out to Rs. 24,000/-per acre. As per the evidence of P.W. 3, one Abdul Gani sold this land to Devasthanam. A suggestion was made to P.W.3 that the said land was sold for a lower price as the purpose of transaction is for a philonthropic purpose but the witness denied the suggestion. Except the suggestion, there is nothing to indicate from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 or R. W. 12 that the said Abdul Gani agreed to receive lower price on the advice of some elders of the town. The rate that is worked out under Ex. A-3 comes to Rs. 246/- and the rate under Ex.A-11 comes to Rs.240/- per cent. If really there is an agreement and the same rate would have been there, (sic) It cannot be said that the vendor under Ex. A-11 parted with the land at a lower rate when the rate that was prevailing is more. Even in December, 1976 as is evidenced from Exs. A-1 and A-2 the rate that was prevailing is Rs. 25,000/ – per acre. Under Ex. A-12 also 56 cents of land in R.S. No. 729/2 was sold on 26-3-1977 and the rate comes to Rs. 25,000/- per acre.
13. Ex. A-13 is the sale certificate dated 12-3-1977 for an extent of 30 cents of land. This land was purchased in Court auction for Rs.8000/- and it works out to Rs.26,600/-. Normally the Court sales that were effected during auction cannot be taken as a comparable sale as there will be some inherent draw backs and it is not a transaction between a willing purchaser and willing seller, A Court auction generally will not reflect a true value that is prevailing in the area and therefore
Ex. A-13 cannot be treated as a comparable sale at all. Similarly where suits have been filed to create documents for the purpose of producing evidence after the filing of the suit and the decrees passed in those suits also cannot be taken as a safe guide to arrive at a reasonable compensation. Therefore, on an analysis of the entire evidence, this Court feels that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 375/ – per a cent of land as against the amount of Rs. 450/- per a cent awarded by the Court below. The claimants are not entitled to any benefits as per the amendment Act. However, on the unpaid amount if any, the claimants are entitled to interest at 6% p.a. from (sic) till
the date of realisation.
14. The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the basic value register that has been made in the year 1975. This basic value register is not maintained on any scientific test. It is only maintained fixing the rate block-wise. If the rate mentioned in the basic value register is applied, the land situated abutting the road and interior of the road will be of the same value. But according to the sale deeds that have been produced in this case, the lands abutting the road Ex. B-3 was sold at Rs. 1,26,300/- per acre whereas on the same day the land interior to the main road was sold at Rs. 88,800/-. Similarly, the sale statistics that have been filed will indicate that the price on the main road is more than the price of the land located on the interior side. When the prices of the land change from location to location, the fixation of the prices blockwise as per the basic value register cannot be applied. It is not even a guiding factor for the Court to arrive at the conclusion. The register is maintained only for the purpose of collecting stamp duty. Even if the value of the land situated at an interior tplace is low, the stamp duty has to be payable ias per the value shown in the register. Therefore we are of the opinion that the rates shown in the basic value register cannot reflect the true value of the lands and it cannot reflect the true value of the lands and it cannot be taken into consideration. In fixing the market value, the Court has to take into account the price which a willing purchaser is prepared to pay to a willing vendor. A
Division Bench of this Court in Jawajee Nagaratnam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, held that the valuation noted in the market value register was not admittedly based on such consideration which a willing party was paying to a willing vendor. The same was based primarily on property tax assessment. Therefore, fixation of market value cannot be made on the basis of the valuation noted in the market value register.
15. In Valluri Seethamma v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada, 1989 (2) API J 5 S.N. our learned brother, Immaneni Panduranga Rao J. held that the value given in the basic value register maintained by the Sub-Registrar should be taken as a sure guide and benefit of Section 28-A of the Act in fixing higher rate of compensation should be extended to all claimants. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in Nagana-tham’s case (supra) this decision does not hold good. The benefit of Section 28-A may be extended to persons who have not even made an application to the Collector. In this case the claimants arc pursuing their legal remedies. The Legislature thought it fit to amend the Act by granting additional solatium and interest at higher rates to the persons who are pursuing the legal remedies. Therefore, the values fixed in the basic value register which is meant for purpose of collection of stamp duty cannot be taken into account for purpose of fixing the market value under the Land Acquisition Act. The other decisions in M/s. Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A. P., 1989 (3) ALT 677 and Ponnavolu Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar, 1992(1) ALT 49 are not applicable to this case as they arise under Indian Stamp Act and they relate to payment of stamp duty on the basis of the market value noted in the basic value register. There some guidelines were given for registering the documents taking into account the rates mentioned in the basic value register. Those rates cannot be applied to the lands acquired for payment of just compensation where the just compensation has to be arrived at on the basis of the market value as on the date of notification taking into account the potential value of the land and the use to which the land will be put
in future and also other comparable sales.
16. The appeal filed by the State i.e. A.S. No. 216 of 1982 is allowed in part fixing the market value of the lands at 375/- per a cent of land and the claimants appeals are dismissed. Cross-objections are also dismissed. No costs.
A.S. Nos. 553 and Cross-objections 674 and 781/83.
17. These appeals are filed against O.P. No. 142 of 1979 with regard to the land in S. Nos.712/A1A, 712/C, 712/D, 7I2/E and 718/1 situate at Moolasagaram village within the Municipal limits of Nandyal town, measuring Ac. 1-11 cents acquired under the Notification dated 23-10-1975. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 21-12-1976 fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 13,000/- per acre or Rs. 130/- per a cent on tRe ground that the land joins the land acquired under the award dated 20-10-1975. The claimants 2 to 5 have claimed Rs. 1500/-per a cent and the 7th claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1200/- per a cent towards compensation. The Court below enhanced it to Rs.45,000/- per acre.
18. Aggrieved against the high rate of compensation, the State filed A.S. No. 553 of 1983 and the claimants have filed A.S. Nos. 674 and 781 of 1983, claiming compensation at Rs. 1500/- per a cent.
19. Possession of the lands was taken on 28-4-1976. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs. B-1 to B-5 were marked. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon Exs. A-1 to A-12, Ex. B-2 is the registration copy of the sale deed dated 11-2-1976 executed by Chakali Chinna Narayana. in favour of Madduleti in respect of Kottam with vacant land for Rs.3,000/-. Ex. B-3 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 27 of 1970 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kurnool i.e. Ex. B-7 marked in the other cases i.e. O.P. No. 15 of 1979. Ex. B-4 is the registration copy of the sale deed in favour of V. Pullaiah executed by Pagidi Subba Rao dated 29-9-1969. Ex. B-5 is the certified copy of the award No. 8/75 dated 19-9-1975. The learned Judge adopted the same reasoning given in
O.P. No. 15 of 1979 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the rate that was given in that O.P. will follow in this case also. Since it has been found that Rs. 375/- would be the reasonable market rate for the lands acquired in the other case in the year 1972, we feel that Rs.375/- per a cent of land would be the reasonable compensation payable to the claimants in this appeal. At any rate, the compensation that has been granted should not be more than what has been found to be a reasonable one between (sic) to the notification. While fixing the compensation this Court took into consideration the rates prevailing in 1966 and the stunted growth of the prices in that year and the following years till 1976. Since the judgment in this case has been delivered after 20-8-1982, following the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prithpal Singh, , the claimants are entitled to interest and the additional solatium. The rate of interest will be at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and at 15% thereafter till the date of deposit.
20. A.S. No. 553 of 1983 filed by the State is partly allowed and the appeals filed by the claimants i.e. A.S. Nos. 674 and 781 of 1983 are dismissed except with the modification with regard to payment of interest. Cross-objections are dismissed.
A.S. No. 487 of 1983.
21. This appeal is filed against O.P. No. 35 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Dist. Judge, Kurnool. The appellant is claimant No. 5 in the said O.P.
22. Following the reasoning given in the other appeals, we feel that it is a case where the market value has to be fixed at Rs. 390/-per a cent of land. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that since no appeal has been filed by the State Government what has been granted by the Court below has to be maintained. The claimant seeks enhancement of compensation over and above Rs. 500/ – per a cent awarded by the Court below. When no cross-appeal is filed on behalf of the State Government and even cross-objections are also not filed, the only alternative left to us, even though we are not inclined to fix the market value more than Rs. 390/- per a cent
of land, to confirm the compensation awarded by the court below. Hence the market value fixed by the Court below at Rs. 500/- per a cent is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The claimant is entitled to the benefits like additional solatium and also interest at 9% p. a. for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and at 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of deposit.-
A.S. No. 143 of 1982.
23. This appeal is filed by the claimant No. 48 in O.P. No. 15 of 1979. The Court below awarded Rs. 1500/- per a cent to this claimant. Dissatisfied with the said compensation, he filed this appeal. He is one of the respondents i.e. Respondent No. 40 in the appeal filed by the State Government i.e. A.S. No. 216 of 1982.
24. Claimant No. 48 himself is examined as R.W. 19, R.W.20 is also examined in support of R.W. 20. He is related to the father of R.W. 19. R.W. 20 is examined to show that there was a bargain between himself and the father of R.W. 19 to purchase the land in question for purposes of running a rice mill and he offered Rs. 4,000/- per a cent, Ex. B-2 is the blue print plan of Nandyal Municipality. On a perusal of Ex. B.2 this Court finds that the land stretching by the side of the road has got more potential value than the interior land. This is the only main piece of land that is available to have access to the other land that has been acquired. The measurements of the land are 40′ x 300′ On a perusal of the plan itself we find that some more amount has to be granted to the claimant as against the amount that has been fixed by the Court below. In Exs. B.3 the land was sold at Rs. 1200/- per a cent in the year 1969. The distance between the land covered by Ex.B.3 and the land under acquisition is about 200 feet. R.W. 14 stated that himself and claimant No. 21 purchased 9 cents of land in S.No. 760/1A for Rs. 8000/- from the vendor of Ex.B. 3 under Ex.B.4 sale deed. Claimant No. 48 as R.W. 19 has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the market value of the land similarly situated fetched an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per a cent as claimed
by him. As per Ex.B-13 four cents of land in S.No. 1909 was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-in the year 1974. It works out to Rs. 2,500/- a cent. P.W.4 had purchased ”’ for the Nandyal Cloth Merchants Cooperative House Building Society, 13 cents of land and as there is no approach road to the said land, he purchased three cents of land from one Narayana Setty for Rs. 6,000/ for the purpose of long road from’the Atmakur Koilkunlla road to their site. If the said society purchased 3 cents of land to have access from the Koilkunlla Atmakur road to their site in the year 1977 at Rs. 2,000/ per cent and under Ex.B. 13 the land was purchased at Rs. 2,500/- per a cent, there is no justification for claimant No. 48 to claim at Rs. 4,000/- per cent. On going through the evidence and the relevant documents, this court feels that the reasoning given by the learned Judge in awarding Rs. 1500/- per a cent to claimant No. 48 is a reasonable amount which cannot be interfered with. Hence this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25. Order accordingly.