AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Radhakrishna Rao, J.—These appeals and the revision petitions arise out of a common Notification issued on 25-8-82 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Rajahmundry u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (''the Act'' for brevity). On reference at the instance of the claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, passed separate orders in different O.Ps. filed by the claimants. As these appeals and revision petitions involve common points and common questions of law, they may be disposed of by a common judgment.
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kakinada, has sent a requisition dated 23-4-1982 to the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as ''the Referring Officer'') for acquisition of 52.43 cents in Dowlaiswaram village and Ac.4.72 cents in Bommuru village of Rajahmundry Taluk, belonging to the claimants for the purpose of construction of godowns of 30 tonnes capacity for storage of food grains. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer initiated proceedings for acquisition of the said lands and issued a draft notification u/s 4(1) of the Act which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dt.25-8-82. An enquiry u/s 5 of the Act was conducted on 10-11-82 and the Draft Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dt.16-2-83 and the lands in question were taken possession of by the Food Corporation of India (the beneficiary) on 9-4-83.
Though the extent of land covered by the notification is Ac.57-37 cents, the actual area that was acquired is only Ac.57-11 cents. After considering nearly 37 sales of Bommuru village and 13 sale deeds of Dowlaiswaram village, the Referring Officer passed the award fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 63,000/- per acre. While considering the sale deeds, he mainly relied upon sale item No. 12 in S.No. 2 dt.31-5-82. The extent of land sold is 0-48 cents at Rs. 58,333/- per acre. Considering the potential value of the land and its location, he fixed the value of the land in question at Rs. 63,000/- per acre.
In respect of Survey No. 9/1 which is the subject matter of A.S. No. 1568/86an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/-has been granted by the Referring Officer on the ground that it is by the side of the main road.
Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners have claimed Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and some claimants have claimed upto Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. After fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 63,000/-a total amount of Rs. 43, 81, 139-35 ps. was paid as compensation to the land owners. At the instance of the land owners, the matter was referred to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the act.
Out of 22 O.Ps. filed by the Land owners before the Subordinate Judges'' Court, Rajahmundry, two O.Ps. have been tried separately. In the remaining 20. OPs. separate judgments have been delivered on 6-3-85 and the two OPs. were disposed of on 13-4-85.
The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the evidence adduced in the case and the documents filed in the Court, enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the award of higher compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Food Corporation of India filed these appeals.
Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India raised a four-fold contention:
First, he contends that in the case of vast extent of land, nearly 57 and odd acres of land, the Court below ought not to have taken into consideration the post-notification sale Ex.B-1 and the sale deeds Exs.B-2 and B-3 whereunder small extents of lands situate within the Municipal limits of Rajahmundry were sold.
Secondly, the Court below was not justified in admitting Exs. B-1 to B-3, particularly when they are uncertified xerox copies, in view of the limitations contained in Section 51A of the Act.
Thirdly, the Court below has not deducted the usual allowance of 40% while relying upon the old sale deeds.
Fourthly, the Court below was not justified in a warding 30% solatium on the additional amount awarded by it.
He further contends that the Court below was not justified in awarding interest for the full amount of compensation, particularly when the amount has already been deposited, which is contrary to Sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
Sri T. Veerabhadraiah and Sri R.S. Raju, learned counsel for claimants, on the other hand, contend that since the comparable sale under Ex.B-1 has been duly proved the Court below was perfectly justified in taking into consideration Exs.B-1 to B-3. With regard to the objection of the appellants that xerox copies were filed into Court the learned counsel contend that since no objection was raised by the Refering Officer or the beneficiary for marking of these xerox copies, these documents have been marked subject to proof and the appellants cannot raise this question at this juncture. They further contend that the user of the land alone has to be taken into consideration and no deduction of allowance need be given.
We shall now take up the objection with regard of marking of xerox copies in the first instance.
The Court below marked the documents Exs.B-1 to B-3 in some of the O.Ps. ''subject to proof. But the mode of proof has not been mentioned nor spelt out. The admissibility of these documents cannot be taken into consideration at this point of time. But the learned counsel for the beneficiary-Corporation argues that the appeals are continuation proceedings of the civil suits and objections can be raised at the appellate stage as well.
Exs.B-1 to B-3 are the certified copies of registered sale deeds marked in O.P.No. 22/84. Since these are certified copies and they are marked through a competent person i.e., R.W.1, the 1st claimant in O.P.22/84, and proof of the documents has been made by adducing the persons concerned i.e., the attestor and the vendors, the objection raised by the appellants is not tenable. But if the parties thought that it was not possible to get registration extracts of the sale deeds from the Sub-Registrar''s office which involves a time consuming factor, they could have as well obtained certified copies of these Exs.B-1 to B-3 from the Court itself for purpose of filing the same and marking the same in the other O.Ps. We are in full agreement with the contention of Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy that xerox copies cannot be marked. However, when once the certified extracts are admitted subject to proof and objection has not been taken by the appellants in the Court below and particularly when certified copies were proved through a competent person in one case, we cannot now accede to the objection raised by the appellants that they are inadmissible in evidence.
Section 51A of the Act reads as follows:-
"51-A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence:
In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) including a copy given u/s 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document."
A plain reading of the above section clearly envisages that uncertified xerox copies cannot be accepted in evidence. The Court below ought to have been diligent enough, at the time of admission of these documents, to insist upon the claimants to file the certified copies of the registration extracts or certified copies of xerox copies. The Court below has not insisted as the other party has not taken any objection in clear terms, and so that objection cannot be allowed to be entertained in this Court particularly when the objection has not been spelt out clearly. This Court makes it clear that the trial Courts must be cautious enough in admitting the documents particularly when uncertified xerox copies are filed. In cases where more number of cases are heard as a batch and where parties file certified copies in one case and rely upon those documents by filing xerox copies in the other cases connected with that batch, the parties should obtain certified copies from the same Court.
Now we have to scrutinise whether the sale deeds Exs.B-1 to B-3 filed in OP 22/84 represent the true market value of the land sold under those sale deeds. For the purpose of convenience we shall deal with the evidence as referred to in OP 22/84 out of which AS 2845/85 arises.
On behalf of the Referring Officer, a Senior Assistant in the Sub-Collector''s Office, Rajahmundry, was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined including the 1st claimant. Exs. A-1 and A-2 were marked on behalf of the Referring Officer. Ex. A-1 is the Award No. 7/83 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry dt.30-11-83 and Ex.A-2 is the combined sketch of Rajahmundry, Bommuru and Dowlaiswaram villages. On behalf of the claimants, three sale deeds of the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 were filed and marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3. B-4 is the award in OP NO. 19/84 dt. 6-3-85 of Sub-Court, Rajahmundry. The said OP arises out of Award No. 7 of 1983, which is marked as Ex.A-1 in this case. Ex.B-1 is the registration extract of the sale deed dt. 8-11-82 under which Ac.2-00 of land situate within the municipal limits of Rajahmundry was sold for Rs. 2,40,000/-. It was registered on 10-12-82. Ex.B-2 is another registered sale deed dt.21-7-81 in respect of 225 sq.yds. of plot which is also situate within the Municipal limits of Rajahmundry. The said plot was sold for Rs. 5675/-. The learned Subordinate Judge mainly relied upon Ex.B-1 in fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre.
We have to consider whether Ex.B-1 is a post-Notification sale or pre-Notification Sale. The claimants made an attempt to show that Rs. 500/- has been paid as advance in the year 1981 itself. R-W.1 is the claimant in OP 22/84. He produced Ex.B-1 under which one person by name B. Laxmana Rao sold his land at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. This Ex.B-1 has been duly proved. In the said sale transaction, the vendor has paid Rs. 30,000/- in September, 1982 and the rest of the amount was paid at the time of registration of the document i.e., on 8-11 -82. The evidence of R.W.-3, the vendee under Ex.B-1 has been fully corroborated with the recitals in Ex.B-1 about the payment of Rs. 30,000/- in advance. With regard to the payment of advance of Rs. 500/- it does not find place in Ex.B-1. Since the Vendee has been examined, it has to be construed that the sale under Ex.B-1 is a post-notification sale. In the case of post-Notification sale, the law is well settled that since the transaction throws some light, it can be taken into consideration. At the same time, it cannot be said that this document alone will decide the quantum of compensation payable for the land acquired. In this case, as already stated above, the letter of requisition was dt. 23-4-82 and Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Gazette on 5-8-82 and Section 5A enquiry was conducted on 10-11-82. This document has come into existence after steps have been initiated for the purpose of acquiring the land in question. In a case where a document has been brought into existence after the proceedings have been initiated and before the publication of Section 4(1) Notification, the Court has to scrutinise that document very carefully and cautiously and see whether the consideration mentioned therein can be relied upon. It cannot be said that the consideration mentioned therein has to be taken for granted particularly when that document has been brought into existence after the initiation of proceedings. This Court is of the firm view that the documents brought into existence after initiation of the acquisition proceedings and before the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification must be viewed very carefully by scrutinising the same with great care and caution since there is ample scope for the parties to bring into existence sale deeds with small extents with a view to get higher compensation by relying upon the language that has been employed in Section 23 of the Act. In this case Ex.B-3 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the just compensation payable to the claimants. Exs.B-1 and B-2 are the sale deeds under which small extents of land situate within the municipal limits of Rajahmundry Municipality were sold and the rate will work out to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. Therefore, it is neither desirable nor appropriate to compare the sale deeds of small plots situate within the Municipal area with that of the land situate in a village near the Municipal limits. When the lands are acquired for purpose of construction of houses, at least 1/3rd of the land has to be deducted for lay-out purposes. Whereas in the case on hand, the land was acquired for construction of godowns for storage of food grains the question of deduction of any land for lay-out purposes does not arise. In the case of land acquired within the municipal area, the value of the land is fixed basing on the amenities and other facilities that are available and the immediate construction potentialities of the land also have to be considered. If we take into consideration the sale deeds, Exs.B-2 and B-3 we have to deduct 1 /3rd for lay-out etc., and the value will come to Rs. 80,000/- per acre as the market value that was prevailing in October, 1980. There is no change of rates in 9 months period between October, 1980 and July, 1981. No evidence has been let in by the claimants by filing any sale deeds during this period to show that there is upward trend in prices. R.Ws.2 to 4 also could not produce any document to show that there is upward trend and that the value of the lands have gone up. This type of oral evidence cannot be accepted without sufficient proof. The value of the land in the Municipal area which is about 2 or 4 furlongs away from the starting point of the land in question was worked out at Rs. 80,000/-.
In so far as Ex.B-1 is concerned, no doubt, it is a post-Notification sale. The land was purchased by a Christian Missionary for the purpose of running a school. So it cannot be said that it was a transaction that was made with a view to boost up the prices of other lands or with a view to get higher compensation for the lands acquired even though one of the claimants is connected with that transaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale was brought into existence with a view to help the claimants to get higher compensation. Following the judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam Vs. K. Ramayyamma and Others, of the value has to be deducted and if 25% is deducted from Rs. 1,20,000/- the value will come to Rs. 90,000/-. If these two documents have to be taken into consideration and taking into account the potential value of the land as mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court feels that Rs. 90,000/ - per acre would be the reasonable market value of the land acquired as on the date of the notification for which the claimants are entitled to.
The learned Standing Counsel for Beneficiary-Corporation submits that basing on the idiom ''dozen is cheaper'' when a large extent of land is acquired, naturally the claimants would be entitled to only lesser compensation than the one fixed by the Court below and the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and correct. But that is only applicable in commercial parlance but not in land acquisition matters where the market value of the land will have to be fixed on the basis of the potential value of the land, the user of the land etc. As rightly put it by the learned counsel, hard cases cannot make bad law, but this is not a hard case.
He nextly contended that the Court below erred in awarding 30% solatium on the additional amount awarded by it. In view of the Judgment of Amareswari, J., in Sub-Collector, Tenali v. Gaddipalli Raja Narasimha Rao 1986(1) A.P.L.J. 221 affirming the view expressed by the learned Judge, we are clearly of the opinion that granting of solatium on the additional amount by the Court below is not correct. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the solatium on the additional amount that has been awarded by the Court below u/s 23(1-A) of the Act.
With regard to interest, Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy argues that the claimants are entitled to interest at 12% p.a. as per Sections 28 and 34 of the Act which deal with the mode of payment of interest to the land owners.
Sections 28 and 34 read as follows:
"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation: If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to date of payment of such excess into Court:
"Provided that where such possession is taken before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, the foregoing provision shall have effect as if for the rate of four per centum per annum specified thereon, the rate of six per cent per annum had been substituted.
Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry."
"34. Payment of interest: When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.
Provided that where such possession is taken before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, the foregoing provision shall have effect as if for the rate of four per centum per annum specified therein the rate of six per centum per annum had been substituted.
"Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry."
On a reading of the language employed in Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, it is clear that the Court is competent to award interest on the enhanced amount also. Whatever the amount that has been granted by the Collector, by taking into account the language employed in Section 28 of the Act, it is for this Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to interest. It is clear from Section 28 that the claimants under the Act are entitled to interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession of the land for a period of one year and thereafter at 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment of such amount into the Court. This contention has been raised in view of the orders passed in the Interlocutory Applications filed by the parties which are the subject matter of revision petitions. The order of this Court on the C.M.Ps. is that the claimants are entitled to withdraw half of the amount deposited with security and the remaining half without security. The appellants have since deposited the amount and the claimants, by virtue of the orders of the Court are prevented to withdraw the amount, they are entitled to interest on the amount that was not withdrawn by them. The compensation that was granted by means of enhancement is from Rs. 63,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/-. But this Court reduced it to Rs. 90,000/- per acre. That means this Court reduced more than half of the amount that has been enhanced by the Court below. Since the claimants were prevented from withdrawing half of the enhanced amount and this Court by allowing the claim of the beneficiary Corporation reduced the compensation, the claimants are not the losers in any way. So the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession of land and thereafter at 15% till the date of deposit in the Court. Whatever amount was found in excess, the same has to be returned to the Corporation with interest accrued thereon. After the deposit, by virtue of the condition that has been imposed by this Court, they are entitled to interest as was contemplated under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act subject to the credit that is being given towards interest if any that has been accrued on the amounts deposited by the Court concerned.
In case where the amount has already been deposited by the Referring Officer and when the compensation amount has been reduced at the appellate stage, the Referring officer is entitled to get back the amount so deposited together with interest if any accrued on the said amount.
Since 25% deduction has already been given, the question of giving maximum deduction of 40% does not arise as the settled position of law indicates that the deduction varies from 20% to 40% depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Appeals are allowed in part. The Revision Petitions and A.A.O. are disposed of accordingly in the light of the observations made above. The Cross-objections are dismissed. No costs.