1995 Supreme(AP) 515

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, S.PARVATHA RAO
Land Acquisition Officer And dy.Director of Social Welfare, Nizambad - Appellant
Versus
G.Narayana Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 08-30-95

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - AWARD OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - SETTING ASIDE - MARKET VALUE OF LAND - DETERMINATION - COMPARABLE SALES - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 51A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - BURDEN OF PROOF - POTENTIALITY OF LAND - EVIDENCE - SECTION 23(1A) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - APPLICABILITY - ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.

Fact of the Case:

The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The claimant challenged the award, and the Additional District Judge (ADJ) enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,48,426-70 ps per acre. The LAO filed an appeal against the ADJ's judgment, and the claimant filed cross-objections claiming compensation at Rs. 63/- per sq. yard and challenging the deduction of 1/3rd area of the land for developmental purposes.

Finding of the Court:

1. The ADJ erred in relying on a sale deed that was not exhibited and did not form part of the record, and in relying on sale deeds without examining any connected person. 2. The burden is on the claimant to establish that he is entitled to higher compensation than what was awarded by the LAO, and the claimant failed to discharge that burden. 3. The LAO was justified in relying on the market value of land awarded in a contemporaneous acquisition proceeding for land that was proximate to the acquired land and similarly situated. 4. The sale deeds relied upon by the claimant cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question, as they were not proved by examining witnesses connected with the transactions. 5. The mere acceptance of certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) does not dispense with the need for examining witnesses connected with the documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. 6. The market value of the land in question should be fixed at Rs. 32,000/- per acre, based on the award in the contemporaneous acquisition proceeding. 7. The claimant is entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of taking possession of the land.

Issues: 1. Whether the ADJ erred in relying on a sale deed that was not exhibited and did not form part of the record, and in relying on sale deeds without examining any connected person. 2. Whether the burden is on the claimant to establish that he is entitled to higher compensation than what was awarded by the LAO, and whether the claimant discharged that burden. 3. Whether the LAO was justified in relying on the market value of land awarded in a contemporaneous acquisition proceeding for land that was proximate to the acquired land and similarly situated. 4. Whether the sale deeds relied upon by the claimant can be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question. 5. Whether the mere acceptance of certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51A of the Act dispenses with the need for examining witnesses connected with the documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. 6. What is the appropriate market value of the land in question. 7. Whether the claimant is entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that he is entitled to higher compensation than what was awarded by the LAO. In the present case, the claimant failed to discharge that burden. 2. In determining the market value of the acquired land, the LAO was justified in relying on the market value of land awarded in a contemporaneous acquisition proceeding for land that was proximate to the acquired land and similarly situated. 3. The sale deeds relied upon by the claimant cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question, as they were not proved by examining witnesses connected with the transactions. 4. The mere acceptance of certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51A of the Act does not dispense with the need for examining witnesses connected with the documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the LAO is partly allowed, and the cross-objections filed by the claimant are allowed to the extent that the claimant is entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of taking possession of the land. The judgment and award of the ADJ are modified accordingly.