SPECIAL DY COLLECTOR Vs. T PEDDA RAM REDDY
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-21
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 31,1992

COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (DEFENCE), HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
T.PEDDA RAM REDDY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KOYAPPATHODI M AYISHA UMMA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.Radhakrishna Rao - (1.)AN extent of Ac. 45 / 03 guntas in S. Nos. 217, 256 and 257 of Kowksoy village and S.Nos. 242, 245, 246, 247, 228 and 229 of Yapral village which was in possession of the military authorities, was sought to be acquired for different purposes as per the requisition of the Military Estate Officer, ANdhra Pradesh Circle, Secunderabad. The notification under Section 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 4-2-71. The Land Acquisition Officer after considering many sale deeds ranging from 88 paise to Rs. l1 per square yard ultimately came to conclusion that Rs. 9,500/- per acre would be the reasonable compensation and passed award on 29-7-91. On reference, the lower Court considered Exs. A-1 and A-2 and ultimately relied upon Ex. A-1, which is for an extent of 300 square yards and which is a post-notification sale dt. 20-7-91. Under Ex. A-1 the land was sold at Rs.11/- per square yard and Ex. A-1 was produced by P.Ws.l and 2. The lower Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 11/- per square yard and after deducting 1/3rd, it arrived at Rs.7-50 ps., per square yard as against the claim of Rs.25/-per square yard.
(2.)THE learned Advocate-General contended that it is a well known proposition that a small extent of 300 square yards cannot be taken into consideration as comparable sale for the purpose of determining the valuation of 45 acres of undeveloped land which is in possession of the military authorities. It is a well settled proposition that when large track of agricultural land or a barren land has been acquired, the sale deed for small extent of 300 square yards, that has been purchased for house-site, cannot be taken as comparable sate. THE comparable sale,means the potentialities of the lands must be seen and that equal potentialities must be there, facilities must be mere, in all respects it must be one and the same. THE site of 300, square yards was purchased by a person in necessity and he can pay more also. It is for that reason the Supreme Court repeatedly held and the latest view expressed in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma vs. State of Kerala that sale deeds for small extent of lands cannot be taken into consideration. If we exclude Ex. A-1, which is a post-notification sale, then there is no other document except Ex. A-2. Ex. A-2 is six years prior to notification and that is also for 4 guntas of land i.e., 484 square yards which was sold at Rs.6.70 per square yard. When the entire track has been acquired for defence purpose, ' when the sale deeds are of small extents of lands and the reasoning given by the lower Court for sale deeds ranging from 88 paise to Rs.11/- and Ex. A-2 is beyond six years prior to the date of notification, it cannot be said that the sate deeds can be taken as comparable sales for the purpose of determining the value of the land. If these two documents have been excluded, the only alternative left for us is to confirm the compensation that has been fixed by the lower Court But it is a vast track of land belonging to so many persons. We feel duly taking into account me caution given by the Supreme Court that the matter should not be remanded back to fill up gaps, an opportunity has to be given to the parties for adducing evidence. It is unfortunate, we may observe, that the learned Govt Pleader or the appellant herein have not taken steps to adduce material . available on record as per the award. In the award we see many sale deeds. Unless and until those documents are marked, exhibited and proved, the Court on reference is not entitled to take them for consideration. It is failure on the part of the appellant also in not producing relevant evidence which is to their knowledge. THE order of me lower Court passed only basing on Exs.A-1 and A-2 and after deducting 1/3rd and it has to be set aside by remanding back the matter to the lower Court for consideration afresh duly taking into account the nature of land, situation of land, purpose for which it was acquired and the potentialities of the land at that time. THE judgment of the lower Court is set aside, me appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the lower Court for determination asexpeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of records. THE lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter uninfluenced by the observations made by mis Court, duly taking in to account the legal settled principles in the case of fixation of market value as on the date of notification. Recovery steps, if any, for the amount that has already been - drawn be taken after the disposal of the matter by the lower Court Court fee shall be refunded. No costs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.