Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO, IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO
Revenue Divisional Officer - Appellant
Versus
Raja J.Rameswara Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 04-13-92
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - DETERMINATION - SALE DEEDS - AUCTION - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 92 - GOVERNMENT PLEADER'S SUGGESTIONS TO WITNESSES - ADMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 1-60 paise per square yard. On reference, the civil court fixed the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants and the beneficiary (A.P.S.R.T.C.) preferred appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale considerations under Exs. A-8 to A-11, being open auction transactions with competitive spirit, cannot be taken as comparable transactions for determining the real value of the land. The court also held that the sale transaction of a small bit of land, like Ex. A-12, cannot be considered as material evidence for determining the market value of a large area of land. The court further held that Exs. A-14 and A-15, relating to a different survey number, require further evidence before they can be considered. The court also held that the sale deed mentioned in the award, but not produced and proved, cannot be considered. The court also held that the suggestions made by the Government Pleader to the witnesses regarding the market value of the land, being contrary to the stand taken in the counter and without instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer, are inadmissible and have no relevance for fixing the compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale considerations under Exs. A-8 to A-11, being open auction transactions with competitive spirit, can be taken as comparable transactions for determining the real value of the land? 2. Whether the sale transaction of a small bit of land, like Ex. A-12, can be considered as material evidence for determining the market value of a large area of land? 3. Whether Exs. A-14 and A-15, relating to a different survey number, require further evidence before they can be considered? 4. Whether the sale deed mentioned in the award, but not produced and proved, can be considered? 5. Whether the suggestions made by the Government Pleader to the witnesses regarding the market value of the land, being contrary to the stand taken in the counter and without instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer, are admissible and have relevance for fixing the compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In the case of open auction transactions with competitive spirit, the bid rate cannot be taken as a real market value, as there may be compensation among the bidders and the price may not reflect the actual market value. 2. The sale transaction of a small bit of land cannot be considered as material evidence for determining the market value of a large area of land, as the price may be a fancy price due to the specific purpose for which the land is being purchased. 3. Documents relating to a different survey number require further evidence before they can be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. 4. A sale deed mentioned in the award, but not produced and proved, cannot be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. 5. Suggestions made by the Government Pleader to the witnesses regarding the market value of the land, being contrary to the stand taken in the counter and without instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer, are inadmissible and have no relevance for fixing the compensation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the lower court and allowed the appeals. The matter was remitted back to the lower court for fresh consideration of the market value of the land, taking into account the oral and documentary evidence produced and to be produced. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
( 1 ) AS these three appeals arise out of a common order dated 25-4-1986 in o. P. No. 16/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Gadwal, all of them are being disposed of together.
( 2 ) AN extent of Ac. 3. 36guntasof dry land covered by S. No. 1142 in Wanaparthy village in Mahaboobnagar District was acquired by means of a notification dated 8-3-1979 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of an R. T. C. bus-stand. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 19-6-1981 fixing me market value at Rs. 1-60 paise per square yard. On reference, the civil court passed an order on 25-4-1986 fixing the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said award the claimants as well the beneficiary i. e. , the A. P. S. R. T. C. preferred these appeals.
( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer considering the potential items and particularly relying upon Exs. A-14 and A-15 sale deeds, awarded a sum of rs. 1-60 Ps. per square yard towards compensation. On reference, in the Civil court, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. As many as 15 documents were marked on behalf of the claimants and one document was marked on behalf of the beneficiary (A. P. S. R. T. C. /state), in the lower court. The lower Court fixed the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard, basing on the oral and documentary evidence. As mentioned above, aggrieved by the same, these appeals were preferred.
( 4 ) SRI K. Harinath, Standing Counsel for the A. P. S. R. T. C. contends that exs. A-8 to A-11 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining the real value of the land as on the date of notification. On the other hand, Sri Nagarjuna reddy, counsel for the claimants contends that Exs. A-8 to A-11 can be treated and takenintoconsiderationasbonafidetransactions between willing purchaser and willing seller and consequently, the lower court has rightly considered and accepted those documents.
( 5 ) IT is well settled that in the case of public auctions, there will be compensation among the bidders. When there is compensation among the bidders, the price may not be the same price as what actually exist in that area. At certain times, if the bidders are more and if each one is keen to have that plot of land, one may offer high price to maximum extent possible disregarding the actual market value even. In the case of auctions of lands, that too, house sites, where more participants are there, we cannot expect the real value which can be treated as a comparable value for the purpose of determining compensation. Yet a distinction, that in the case of court-auctions, as there will be much litigation and doubtful title, the rate of bid may be less than the market value. So, in the case of private auctions of plots where there is dear title, definitely the value expected will be competitively higher and therefore, it will not and cannot reflect the true market value existing in that locality. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in case where the transactions resulted in open auction and where there are many bidders, that bid rate cannot be taken into account as a real market value. In this case, P. W. I is the person connected with the 2nd claimant. He was not an employee under the second claimant at that time and he participated in the auction. Though he claims that there is no competitive spirit in the auction, the evidence on record categorically discloses that there is competitive spirit. He himself bid at Rs. 1,41,000/- whereas another bid it at rs. 1,45,000/ -. This is clear indication that there is competitive spirit in the open auction. Hence, the sale considerations under Exs. A-8 to A-11 cannot be taken as comparable transactions for the purpose of determining the real value of the land in question.
( 6 ) IF we exclude Exs. A-8 to A-11, then remains Ex. A-12 sale transaction. Normally in a case where a small bit of land is sold, measuring 12 x 12, eve
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
