Special Deputy Collector vs P. Basaveswara Rao

Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.—Ac.3-05 cents belonging to the respondent covered by S.No. 503/3 of Gollapudi village along with some other land totaling Ac.15-81 cents were acquired for construction of a market yard as per the notification dt. 20-1-1977 issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brief ''the Act''). On 8-5-1981 the Collector passed award No. 1 /1981 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 21,700/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada u/s 18 of the Act and the learned Subordinate Judge as per the Judgment dt. 10-8-82 increased the compensation to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Government filed this appeal. Alleging that the respondent-claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, the respondent preferred cross-objections.

The only point for consideration is what was the just compensation payable for the land under acquisition. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued on 20-1-77 relating to this matter. Before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, the respondent has examined himself as P.W.1. He filed five documents speaking to the market rate of the land in question, i.e., Exs.A-1 to A-4 and A-6. Exs.A-1 relates to 5 1/2 cents of land covered by S.No. 507. Exs.A-1 is dt. 26-12-1975. The land relates to Gollapudi village and the consideration paid under Exs. A-lis Rs. 3,500/-. Exs.A-2 is the sale deed dt.24-12-1975 relating to 0-23 cents of land covered by S.No. 507/1 of Gollapudi village and the consideration paid there under is Rs. 13,500/- Exs. A-3 is the sale deed dt.25-12-75 for 0-22 cents of land covered by S.No. 507 of Gollapudi village for Rs. 13,400/-. Exs. A-4 is the sale deed dt.24-12-1977 regarding 266 sq. yards of site covered by S.No. 506/1 for Rs. 5,000/- Ex. A 6 is the registered agreement of sale dt.23-2-1972 regarding 1086 sq. yards of site for Rs. 26,000/-. This land is situated at Bhavanipuram, while lands covered by Exs.A-1 to A_3 are situated at Gollapudi village. While increasing the compensation from Rs. 21,700/- as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs. 1,20,000/- the learned Principal Subordinate Judge observed as follows: -

".... But there is positive proof to show that on 17-5-1975, an agreement of sale was entered into for 5 acres of land in R.S.No. 506/1 at Rs. 90,000/- per acre which ultimately materialised into actual sales and sale deeds were executed from 1977 and onwards till 1980 and in those circumstances, the agreement of sale dt.17-5-1975 for Rs. 90,000/- per acre may be safely taken into account for arriving at the market value of the land on 20-1-77 by making some correct guess work and arrive at minimum Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre."

Thus the learned Principal Subordinate Judge relied upon the agreement dt. l7-5-75 to arrive at the conclusion that as on the said date, the market value of the land covered by R.S.No. 506/1 of Gollapudi viillage was Rs. 90,000/- per acre and from 1975 to 1977, escalation has got to be provided for and Rs. 30,000/- per acre was given to cover the said escalation and awarded Rs. 1,20,000/-per acre.

Sri Raja Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon these documents, submits that Exs.A-1 to A-3 relate to small extents of land and in no event, reliance can be placed on Ex.A-4 for the reason that the said document came into existence long after Section 4(1) notification dt.20-1-1977. He further submits that Ex.A-4 document was brought into existence after Section 4(1) notification mentioning about the agreement of sale dt. 17-5-75 to help the case of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that no reliance can be placed on Ex.A-6 for the reason that the land covered by the said document is from Bhavanipuram which is far away from Gollapudi village where the land under acquisition is situated.

It is to be seen that the land covered by Ex. A-6 agreement of sale (the said document is referred to as the sale deed but the same is not a sale deed and it is only an agreement of sale) pertain to the land situated at Bhavanipuram. The evidence of P.W.1 is that Ex.A-6 is situated at a distance of two furlongs from the land under acquisition and he denied the suggestion made to him that the said distance is two kilometres. Thus, it is to be noted that the land covered by Ex.A-6 and the land under acquisition are situated in separate villages and they are separated by a distance of two furlongs, according to respondent and 2 kilometres according to the appellant. Even according to P.W.1, in addition to that, Ex.A-6 pertains to 1086 sq. yards of site. It is to be further seen that no person concerning Exs.A-6 transaction is examined. P.W.1 is not connected with the transaction covered by Ex.A-6 though he simply says that he has got personal knowledge. In these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon Ex A-6 transaction.

Strong reliance is placed on Ex.A-4 to show that the market rate and the value of the land covered by the said document was Rs. 90,000/- per acre in the year 1975 and providing for escalation the said land would be more than Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. In the first instance, it is to be seen that P.W.1 is not a party to the said document. It is to be seen that Ex. A-4 is dt.24-12-1977 while Section 4(1) notification was issued on 20-1-77. Thus, there is a gap of nearly 11 months between the execution of Ex.A-4 and Section 4(1) notification. Thus, Exs. A-4 was executed 11 months after Section 4(1) notification. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent submits that Ex.A-4 was executed basing on the agreement dt.17-5-75. As a matter of fact, strong reliance is placed on this agreement of sale dt.17-5-75 referred to in Ex.A-4 by the lower court; from 1975 escalation was also provided for to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per acre and compensation was awarded at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre, by the lower court. But it is to be seen that since Ex.A-4 was executed on 24-12-77, that is about 11 months after Section 4(1) notification in this case, it is not difficult to get a recital in Ex.A-4 mentioning a date which is anterior in point of time to 20-1-77, the date of Section 4(1) notification, with the help of the parties to Ex.A-4. In addition, it is to be seen that Ex.A-4 is regarding 266 sq. yards of site. So, since Ex.A-4 came into existence about 11 months after Section 4(1) notification and since we are not inclined to accept the agreement dt.17-5-75 referred to in Ex.A-4, more particularly, in view of the fact that no body pertaining to Ex.A-4 got into the witness box and submitted himself for the cross-examination mentioning the circumstances under which the agreement dt.17-5-75 was executed, it is not safe to rely upon the agreement dt.17-5-75. Exs.A-1 to A-3 are dt.26-12-75,24-12-75 and 25-12-1975 respectively and they relate to 5 1/2 cents, 0-23 cents and 0-22 cents respectively. The valuation adopted under Exs.A-1 to A-3 per acre respectively comes to Rs. 63,636/-. Rs. 58,700/- and about Rs. 60,000/-. Though Ex.A-1 is only for 5 1/2 cents, and Exs.A-2 and A-3 are for 0-23 cents and 0.22 cents respectively, the prices of the said, land ranged between Rs. 58,700 to Rs. 63,636/-, say Rs. 64,000/-per acre. Thus, the market rate prevailing in December, 1975 in the locality is Rs. 64.000/- taking the highest rate per acre.

It is to be seen that in the year 1976, the urban land ceiling came into force as a result of which, there was prohibition of alienation of urban land. This is also spoken to by P.W.1. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 categorically stated that he could not place any sale transactions during the years 1976 and 1977 because of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. -By virtue of the urban land ceiling, there was prohibition of alienation of urban land and as a consequence of which, there was a lull regarding the transactions in urban land situated within the urban agglomeration during the said period. This fact can be taken judicial note of. In view of these circumstances, to expect that there was tremendous escalation of prices during that period cannot be accepted. It is also to be seen that not even a single scrap of paper is placed on record to speak to the said escalation. Under these circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the respondent that there was tremendous escalation of prices for urban land under urban agglomeration of Vijayawada cannot be accepted. But since by and large there is some escalation of prices regarding the urban land, justice would be met by awarding a sum of Rs. 16,000/- for the said one year and one month gap between the date of execution of A-l and the date of Section 4(1) notification. Thus, we find that the just compensation in this case, would be, at the most Rs. 80,000/- per acre.

It is to be seen that the respondent filed cross-objections claiming compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e., Rs. 30,000/- per acre in excess of what was granted by the lower court. Though the respondent claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, in the course of his evidence he has categorically mentioned as follows:

"I am restricting my claim to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre though I asked in my application for1 1/2 lacs."

Having realised the realities about the potentialities of the land and since the other claimants claimed only Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre even before the Land Acquisition Officer and on seeing the document that has been filed for the small extent and the valuation thereof, the claimant thought it fit to restrict his claim to Rs. 1,20,000/-.

Relying upon Section 25 of the Act, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is entitled to ask for Rs. 1,50,000/-. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that prior to the amendment, the respondent could not ask for more than what he has claimed in the claim petition, but after the amendment, his client is not bound to restrict his claim to the one asked for in the claim petition. He further submits, relying upon a decision of this court reported in Spl. Dy. Collector (LA) v. Kasamani Achamm 1989(1) APLJ 456 that Section 25 of the Act is retrospective in operation and he is entitled to invoke Section 25 of the Act as amended though the acquisition proceedings were initiated long before. It is true that the said decision categorically says that Section 25 had retrospective operation. But the point to be considered is that once the respondent restricted his claim to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre, he is not entitled to ask anything more over and above the said claim on the principle of estoppel by conduct. Hence, in any event, the respondent is not entitled to ask for more than Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre and thus the cross-objections are not maintainable. Even otherwise, since we observe that the respondent is not entitled to more than Rs. 80,000/- per acre, the cross objections fail.

The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment dt. 9-2-89 in A.S.No. 1048/84 and also a judgment dt.12-9-90 in A.S.No. 260/55, both of. this court, and submits that since the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre for the lands acquired under the same notification, the respondent is also entitled, in any event, to compensation at the same rate. In view of the said submission, the Judgments, above referred to were brought and on a perusal, it is found that A.S.No. 260/85 was disposed of on 12-9-90 observing that this matter was covered by the Judgment in A.S.No. 1048/84 dt.9-2-89. When the judgment dt.9-2-89 in A.S.No.1048/84 is perused, the said judgment shows that the said judgment was disposed of in the light of the judgment dt.8-2-89 in A.S.No. 873/84. When the Judgment dt.8-2-89 in A.S.No. 873/84 is perused, it shows that the subject matter in that case pertain to acquisition of a land situated at Gudivada and the same has nothing to do with the land covered by Section 4(1) notification in this case which is situated at Gollapudi village. A.S.No. 873/84 is against O.P.No. 51/81 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada while O.P.Nos. 302/81 and 309/89were instituted on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge''s court, Vijayawada. Thus the judgment in A.S.No. 1048/84 and 260/85, though arising out of the same notification, were not disposed of on merits. In the circumstances mentioned above, the said judgments cannot help the respondent.

In view of the above circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the respondent is entitled only to Rs. 80,000/- per acre towards compensation. The respondent is also entitled to additional solatium at 12% p.a. u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act plus interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and at 15% thereafter, till the date of payment or deposit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the cross-objections are dismissed. No costs.