Land Acquisition Officer (RDO) vs M. Narayana and Others

Motilal B. Naik, J.—Appeal No. 3401/92, 863/92, 91/93, 165/93, 394/93, 402/93, 602/93, 940/93 and 775/93 arise out of a common order passed in O.P.Nos. 33/88, 42/88, 44/88, 1/89, 7/89, 13/89, 5/89, 35/88 and 38/88 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool on 11-9-1989. Similarly, Appeal Nos. 1282/92, 2239/92, 68/93, 73/93, 93/93, 167/93 and 887/93 arise out of the common order passed in O.P.Nos. 39/88, 32/88 40/88, 4/89, 36/88, 41/88 and 9/89 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool dated 13-9-1989.

The subject matter in all these appeals is lands acquired for the purpose of restoration of Sunkari Kunta Tank. All these lands are situated in Madhavanpally village of Amrad Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District. These lands were acquired through a common notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (For short "the Act") which was published in the A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary No. 65, dated 9-2-1984 at pages 12 and 13 dispensing enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. Since these lands are from the same village and are governed by one and the same notification, two sets of O.Ps. were disposed of on 11-9-89 and 13-9-89 by the Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool. As the entire evidence in these O.Ps. is common and they were disposed of by a common order, these appeals are also being disposed of by this common order.

These lands are situated in Agency track of Mahaboobnagar district and as such no registered sale deeds were available before the Land Acquisition Officer for three preceding years. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, in the absence of the registered sale deeds, has proceeded to award compensation by adopting capitalisation method. The Land Acquisition Officer has classified these lands into dry lands and wet lands only and awarded Rs. 4,000/- per acre to the dry lands and Rs. 6,000/- per acre to the wet lands. For the purpose of awarding compensation, the L.A.O. has taken the crop yield on the lands. The L.A.O. felt that the land yield could be 4 quintals of Jawar per acre and valued the same at Rs. 130/- per quintal thereby fixing the total value of the yield at Rs. 520/-. He has deducted 50% from out of the said amount on account of expenditure and further held that the net income per acre on the land yield is Rs. 260/-. While applying 16 as multiplier, the L.A.O. though felt that the income could be Rs. 4,200/- yet fixed the rate at Rs. 4,000/- per acre in respect of dry lands.

As far as the wet lands are concerned, the L.A.O. has categorised these lands only as ''wet lands'' though there are single crop and double crop wet lands. He has hiked compensation of the wet lands by 50% and has tentatively fixed the value at Rs. 6,000/- per acre in addition to other benefits.

In so far as the irrigation wells are concerned, the well which is located in Sy. No. 784 is the subject matter of A.S.No. 394/93. The other irrigation wells located in Sy. Nos. 785/A, 785/E and 786 are the subject matter of A.S. No. 940/93. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 3740/- towards compensation for the well situated in Sy. No. 784 which is the subject matter of A.S.No. 394/93. Likewise, the well situated in Sy. No. 785/A, an amount of Rs. 10,930/- has been awarded to it. The well located in Sy. No. 785/AA, has been awarded Rs. 1270/-. The well located in Sy. No. 785/E is concerned, the L.A.O. has awarded Rs. 1030 and the well located in Sy. No. 786 is concerned, the L.A.O. has awarded Rs. 450/- only.

As against these amounts being awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, both on the lands and wells. The land owners (respondents herein) received compensation under protest and sought reference u/s 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. The Civil Court on the basis of the evidence let in by the respective claimants has catgorised the lands into three categories such as dry lands, single crop wet lands (WSC) and double crop wet land (WDC). The Court below enhanced the compensation as far as dry lands are concerned from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per acre. As far as the wet land single crop is concerned, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 6,000/- per acre to Rs. 22,500/- per acre. Insofar as the double crop wet land is concerned, the L.A.O. has awarded Rs. 30,000/- per acre. With regard to wells, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation of well situated in Sy. No. 784 from Rs. 3,740/- to Rs. 20,030/- basing on Ex.A-1. For the well situated in Sy. No. 785/A is concerned, as against the award of Rs. 10,930/-, the Civil Court enhanced it to Rs. 49,499/- basing on Exs.A-4. As far as the well situated in Sy. No. 785/AA is concerned, as against the award of Rs. 1,270/- of L.A.O. the Civil Court enhanced it to Rs. 19,900/- under Ex.A-5. Coming to the well situated in Sy. No. 785/E as against the award of Rs. 1,030/- by the L.A.O. the Civil Court enhanced it to Rs. 20,200/- basing on Ex.A-6. Finally, as far as the well situated in Sy. No. 786 is concerned, as against the award of Rs. 450/- by the L.A.O., the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15,010/- on the basis of Ex.A-7. As against the abovesaid enhancement by the Civil Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred these appeals.

The learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Forests Sri Tulsi Reddy, raised three contentions before this Court while assailing the award of the Civil Court below. Firstly, it is contended that these lands are situated in agency areas and in the absence of any sale documents available to the Land Acquisition Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation rightly following the capitalisation method and therefore, the Civil Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation merely on the basis of the oral evidence of the claimants. It is secondly contended that as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another Vs. Shanti Devi and Others, , and in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and Others, , that in the absence of the sale deeds available, enabling the L.A.O. to award reasonable compensation, the method of capitalisation is proper and under such capitalisation method, the maximum multiplier could be 15 and therefore, the L.A.O. has rightly applied 16 as multiplier and as such the Civil Court ought not to have interfered with the award of the L.A.O. Thirdly, it is contended that the Civil Court has failed to take note of the fact that these lands are situated in agency area and the major yield in these lands is only Jawar and as such, ignoring these facts, the Civil Court has enhanced the compensation which is unwarranted. As far as the wells are concerned, it is contended, there is no evidence to show that these wells are used for irrigation purposes and as such the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper. In the circumstances, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the appeals have to be allowed by setting aside the award passed by the Civil Court.

Sri V. Manohar Rao, Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners-respondents in these appeals sought to sustain the enhanced compensation awarded by the Civil Court by contending that though the Land Acquisition Officer while awarding the compensation has felt that commercial crops such as groundnuts and castor are also grown on these lands and irrigation facilities are also available for these lands which are fertile, yet, the Land Acquisition Officer has ignored these facts and awarded meagre compensation. Merely because the lands are situated in agency areas, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot ignore their potentiality. It is contended that, before the Civil Court, as many as seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants, one of them being the Secretary of the Marketing Committee and as many as 8 documents were marked. The price certificate of the crops grown by the claimants in Ex.A-3 issued by the Secretary of Marketing Committee, Achampet which has also been marked by the claimants-land owners in the Civil Court to indicate that the value of the crop yield on the lands is higher than what was ascertained by the L.A.O. and therefore, the Civil Court, it is contended, was justified in enhancing the compensation to the present value. It is further contended that though the lands are fertile and got more potentiality, unfortunately, on account of the fact that these lands are situated in agency areas, it is not open to the L.A.O. to deny the land owners the reasonable compensation. Whether the lands are located in agency area or in plain area, the nature of the land, its potentiality and the yield flowing from it shall form the basis for the purpose of determining the compensation on these lands. It is therefore, urged before this Court that though the claimants have claimed more compensation before the L.A.O. but the L.A.O. has ignored their claims. The Civil Court on the basis of the material before it is justified in granting the present compensation. It is pleaded that no grounds are made out by the appellant for interference by this Court in these appeals.

I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the Counsel for the respondents at length.

Basically, the lands in question are all agricultural lands situated in agency areas. As seen from the award proceedings of the L.A.O., who is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, he has observed while awarding compensation for the lands in question, that the lands are fertile and commercial crops are also grown on the said lands. He has also observed that some lands are also irrigated through wells. According to him, the crops raised in these lands are Jawar, Raagi and Sajja including commercial crops like ground nut and cast or. The L.A.O. further says that the commercial crops are not taken into consideration for fixing the market value on the capitalisation method. The L.A.O. for the purpose of awarding compensation, had taken Jawar as the major crop and estimated the value on the basis of this crop. On a reading of the award of the L.A.O., I am not convinced that the L.A.O. is justified in fixing the compensation while applying capitalisation method only on the basis of dry crops such as Jawar. Significantly, the Land Acquisition Officer has not given any reasons for ignoring the commercial crops for fixing the compensation, when it is found by him that commercial crops are also grown on the lands. It is but natural that compensation should have been fixed on the basis of commercial crops which would have fetched more value to the land owner.

Land Acquisition Act is a beneficial Act. Legislature is conscious of the fact that the land owners whose lands are acquired pursuant to acquisition proceedings are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. What shall be just and reasonable compensation, Section 23 of the Act provides for taking various factors into consideration while determining the reasonable compensation. Land Acquisition proceedings though initiated by the Government for public purposes, even after the lands being taken possession of pursuant to the proceedings, reasonable compensation is not paid to the claimants in time, with the result, the land owner not only loses his land once for all but also unable to get reasonable compensation in time. The period taken for awarding compensation and payment thereof is so abnormal in many cases. The land owners whose lands have been acquired by the Government many a time become pauper by the time they get compensation. At times, they do not survive till they get compensation. A citizen who solely depends upon the land yield, once such lands are acquired for public purpose, it is necessary that the State shall compensate him properly within a reasonable time. The machinery which is authorised to award compensation shall therefore, has a responsible role to play in the land acquisition matters.

The endeavour of the Legislature is to compensate the land owner by fixing reasonable price. The benefit shall always go to the land owner but not to the State. This is the principle evolved in the judicial pronouncements of the Indian Courts. When there is a contest between the State and the citizen, the endeavour of law is to benefit the citizen than the State.

Generally, land transactions in agency areas are prohibited in view of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. Even the transaction between non-tribes is also prohibited except with the prior permission of the concerned authority under the Regulation. It is but natural that though transactions take place in these areas, sale deeds are not prepared so as to avoid the implication of Regulation, 1959.

Therefore, the land owners in the agency areas whose lands are acquired by the State for public purpose, in the absence of any sale deeds available, cannot be denied just and reasonable compensation. The L.A.O. has to necessarily examine the land values surrounding the agency areas which would give basis to determine the value when lands are acquired in agency areas. In compulsory acquisition by State, citizen has no say. By resorting to compulsory acquisition in agency areas such affected people cannot get lands for the same value in neighbouring areas. Since transfer of lands is prohibited in agency areas, such of those who are solely dependent on agriculture cannot get lands in agency areas. Therefore, for their survival, they have to seek lands outside agency area. This factor has always to be borne in mind by the authorities while determining land values in these areas. It is necessary that the potentiality of the land is also taken into account while determining the compensation irrespective of the fact whether the lands are situated in agency areas or in plain areas while determining the value of the land by applying capitalisation method.

It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, has held that the maximum multiplier could be 15 for fixing the market value of the lands acquired. In this case, the L.A.O., has applied 16 as the multiplier to show that proper multiplier is applied. But the L.A.O., has only taken noncommercial crops for the purpose of fixing the market value but has ignored the commercial crops. The Civil Court, in my view, has rightly tried to compensate the land owners reasonably.

Admittedly, these lands are fertile and are classified as dry lands, single crop wet lands, and double crop wet lands. The L.A.O. has felt that the probable average yield could be 4 quintals of Jawar per acre. The Civil Court has estimated the average yield at 8 quintals of Jawar. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 8 goes to show that the yield per acre per annum is more than 8 quintals. Therefore, striking a balance, average yield could be estimated around 6 quintals. If the commercial crop groundnut is taken for the purpose of determining the market value, a quintal of groundnut is valued around Rs. 400/-. So the value of the yield could be 6 x 400 = 2,400/-. From out of this, tentatively 1/3rd could be deducted towards expenditure (1/3rd comes to Rs. 800/-) 2,400 - 800 = 1,600/-. If the multiplier 16 as applied by the L.A.O. is applied to this 1,600/-, it comes to Rs. 25,600/- (1,600 x 16). Thus, the net compensation could be Rs. 25,600/- per acre on an average. However, the L.A.O. has awarded only Rs. 4,000/- per acre as far as dry lands are concerned and Rs. 6.000/- per acre as far as wet lands are concerned. Therefore, there is a wide disparity between the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the potential value of the land. In my view, fixation of compensation by the L.A.O. only on the basis of Jawar crop is unreasonable. It is unthinkable to fix Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- as land value to these fertile lands only because these lands are situated in agency area as no documents are available. In the absence of documents, it is obligatory on the part of the L.A.O. to make local enquiry to assess the real value of the lands on the basis of their potentiality and the crops raised thereon. The L.A.O. could have ascertained the land value from the neighbouring non-agency tracks also.

The Civil Court has felt that 8 quintals of Jawar could be the tentative yield per acre. The rate of Jawar has been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Civil Court at Rs. 130/-. For 8 quintals, at the rate of 130/-, the value has been arrived Rs. 1,040/- by the L.A.O. However, the Civil Court has deducted 25% expenditure on that amount i.e., Rs. 280/-. The net income arrived at by the Civil Court is Rs. 760/-. The Civil Court has taken 20 years as capitalisation at the rate of Rs. 750/- and fixed Rs. 15,000/- per acre as the average yield. As far as the single crop wet lands are concerned, the Civil Court has given 50% hike. For the double crop wet land is concerned, the Civil Court has given 100% hike. Thus, an amount of Rs. 22,500/- and 30,000/- per acre has been fixed by the Civil Court per acre for the single crop wet land and double crop wet land respectively apart from fixing Rs. 15,000/- to the dry lands.

In so far as the wells are concerned, it is on record that on the basis of the valuation certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (Retd.) who is the authorised officer to issue the same, the Civil Court has awarded the compensation. There is no evidence on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer to disprove or negative the evidence placed by the land owners in this regard. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 ad 6 coupled with Ex.A-3 - certificate issued by the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Achampet on the basis of which the Civil Court has enhanced the compensation, in my view, seems to be reasonable.

Though on the basis of arguments and on the basis of the material placed before this Court and the view I have taken, I am inclined to say that the respondents - land owners are entitled for more compensation than what was awarded by the Civil Court. This view is arrived by this Court taking into consideration the observations made by the Land Acquisition Officer himself in the award proceedings that the lands are fertile and commercial crops are also grown on them. Since no cross-objections have been filed by the land owners against the orders of the Civil Court, this Court cannot extend any further benefit to the land owners.

It is in doubt true that in the two decisions cited supra, the Supreme Court has held that the relevant multiplier while fixing the compensation on the basis of capitalisation method could be 15, the mutliplier now being applied by the Civil Court seems to be just and reasonable as the Land Acquisition Officer failed to determine the value of the land on the basis of commercial crops.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that the compensation awarded by the Civil Court seems to be just and reasonable and there are no reasons for this Court to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Civil Court.

In the circumstances, these appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer must therefore, fail and accordingly they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.