Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.V.MARUTHI, V.BHASKARA RAO
Land Acquisition Officer - Appellant
Versus
Shaik Bahileem - Respondent
L.P.A. No 71/90 & As.No.506/83
Decided On : 03-31-95
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, Mr. K.F. Baba
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Sec.11 - RES JUDICATA - Dismissal of some land acquisition appeals by a Single Judge of High Court relating to same notification - No letters patent Appeals preferred against those judgments - In a subsequent appeal relating to same notification judgment of Single Judge in earlier appeals operates as res judicata.
HELD: Where there is no sale deed for a large area of land, the sale-deeds for small extents of lands also can be taken into consideration. But as the said price reflects only retail price. Sufficient deduction has to be made taking into consideration all the amenities to be provided to the acquired land, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
The lower court has not made any deductions from the price fixed for the acquired lands. It is not disputed that the lands acquired are of a vast extent and these are acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. It is not the case of the claimants that there were already roads, electricity lines, water tap connections or wells, and sewerage facilities in the acquired lands. Therefore, to make the acquired lands fit for house-sites, roads must be laid, electricity lines must be drawn and water facilities have also to be provided. It is also evident from the evidence that one road is abutting S.No.45 and near about the surrounding area there are developed housing colonies and that in the near about area lands were sold as house site plots, Therefore, it is just and proper that if a deduction of one third is made it will meet the ends of justice.
The principle of res judicata applies between the same parties provided the issue is the same and a finality is arrived at. In this case, different parties are involved. The principle of res judicata as laid down under Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the general principles of res judicata will apply where the parties to the judgments are the same and the issues are also the same and where the earlier judgment is finally decided between the same parties by the competent court. But, in the present case, the claimants are different in each case. Therefore, the question of applicability of res judicata does not arise.
The market value fixed in the other three appeals by the Civil Court which is confirmed by a learned single Judge of this Court is only a relevant piece of evidence but cannot operate as res judicata.
( 1 ) THE lands in question comprised in an extent of acres 5. 00 in R. S. No. 45/1 and acres 1-07 1/2 cents in R. S. Nos. 45/1,2,3 and 4 of Bhavanipuram village, vijayawada were acquired, for providing house-sites to the weaker sections. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 5-1-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed an award on26-3-1981 fixing compensation at Rs. 34,200/-per acre. The Claimants being not satisfied with the said compensation sought reference to the Civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.- The Claimants claimed compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. On reference, the cases are numbered as O. P-Nos. 264,265,267,266 and 263 of 1981. The Civil Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,52,875/- per acre. Assailing those judgments the Land Acquisition Officer preferred appeals - A. S. Nos. 2801 /82,2721/81,2508/82,506/83 and 3379/82. Except A. S. No. 506/83 all the other appeals were dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23-11-1988 confirming the judgments of the Civil Court. Against the judgment in A. S. No. 3379/82 the present L. P. A. No. 71 /90 was filed by the Land acquisition Officer. As A. S. No. 506/83 is not disposed of, it is also posted along with the present Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, both these are disposed of by this common judgment as the lands in both the cases were acquired by a single notification.
( 2 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the Land Acquisition officer contended that the enhancement of the compensation made by the civil Court is too excessive; the lower Court erred in relying on a sale-deed, ex. A-1, dated 5-5-1978, which was in respect of a small extent of land of 573 sq. yards; the land under Ex. A-l was sold for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,52,875/- per acre; the lower Court ought not to have relied on a sale-deed which was in respect of a very small extent of land except when there is no other documentary evidence on record to show the market value of the land. He further contended that when there is no evidence on record, the Civil court has to confirm the award; but the Civil Court erred in enhancing compensation; therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal and the Appeal suit were filed. It is further contended that the acquired lands were agricultural lands and were not fit for sale as house-sites and that therefore fixation of market value basing on Ex. A-l is not correct. It is further contended mat the lower Court erred in not deducting anything towards expenses for development when the acquired land is undeveloped agricultural land particularly when a sale deed of small plot is relied on.
( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the village Bhavanipuram is just adjacent to the Vijayawada municipal area and the same was also included in the municipal area on 20-8-1981; therefore, the compensation awarded is too meagre compared to the market value of the land prevailing in that area. It is further contended that the appeals filed against the judgments of the Civil Court awarding the same compensation in respect of similar lands which were acquired under the same notification were already dismissed and became final and, therefore, those judgments would operate as res judicata and the present appeals have to be dismissed as the same cannot be proceeded with.
( 4 ) IN view of the above said contentions the main point that arises for decision is what is the proper market value to be paid as compensation for the acquired lands.
( 5 ) TO decide what is the proper market value to be paid to the claimants, the following points arise for consideration in these appeals.
( 6 ) (1) Whether the sale under Ex. A-l is a genuine sale or not?
( 7 ) IN respect of A. S. No
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
