1970 Supreme(AP) 280

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY, K.RAMASWAMY
Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam - Appellant
Versus
P.Narasing Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 12-17-70

The court held that sale deeds are admissible as evidence in land acquisition proceedings and should not be rejected unless found to be not genuine. The court also held that sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer are not admissible as evidence and that the potential value of the land can be taken into account in determining the compensation.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - DETERMINATION - SALE DEEDS - ADMISSIBILITY - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTIONS 3, 9, 11, 17 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, SECTION 18 - POTENTIAL VALUE - DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENSES - DEDUCTION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, the Requisitioning Authority, and the respondents, the claimants, were dissatisfied with the determination of compensation for lands acquired in Visakhapatnam Municipality under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 2.22 per sq. yard, deducting 1/3rd towards developmental expenses, resulting in a final award of Rs. 1.48 per sq. yard. The claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the Civil Court rejected the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, relying on sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. The court determined compensation at Rs. 6.81 per sq. yard and deducted 1/3rd, resulting in an award of Rs. 4.54 per sq. yard.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the lower court erred in rejecting the sale deeds (Exs. A-1 to A-6) adduced by the claimants without examining either the vendor or the vendee. The court relied on the decisions in Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur and Srinivasulu v. L A Officer, holding that the sale deeds were admissible as evidence and should not have been rejected unless found to be not genuine. The court also held that the lower court erred in relying on the sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer, as they were not admissible as evidence. The court further held that the lower court erred in not relying on Ex. A-5, a sale deed executed by the claimant himself in 1960, which reflected a price of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. The court found that the lands possessed potential value as house sites and that the award of compensation by the lower court was clearly illegal.

Issues: 1. Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the sale deeds (Exs. A-1 to A-6) adduced by the claimants without examining either the vendor or the vendee? 2. Whether the lower court erred in relying on the sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer? 3. Whether the lower court erred in not relying on Ex. A-5, a sale deed executed by the claimant himself in 1960? 4. Whether the lands possessed potential value as house sites? 5. Whether the award of compensation by the lower court was clearly illegal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sale deeds (Exs. A-1 to A-6) adduced by the claimants were admissible as evidence and should not have been rejected unless found to be not genuine. The court relied on the decisions in Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur and Srinivasulu v. L A Officer, holding that the sale deeds were evidence of the facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact which supported an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact so far as they were necessary for that purpose. 2. The court held that the lower court erred in relying on the sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer, as they were not admissible as evidence. The court held that the statistics were not evidence of the price paid for the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired, and that they did not possess similar advantages. 3. The court held that the lower court erred in not relying on Ex. A-5, a sale deed executed by the claimant himself in 1960, which reflected a price of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. The court held that the sale deed was evidence of the price paid for the land and that it should have been considered by the lower court in determining the compensation. 4. The court held that the lands possessed potential value as house sites, as they were situated in a developing area and had building potential. The court relied on the decisions in Gajapathiraju v. Rev Divi Officer and Raghubans Narain v. Govt. of U P, holding that the potential value of the land could be taken into account in determining the compensation. 5. The court held that the award of compensation by the lower court was clearly illegal, as it was based on inadmissible evidence and failed to take into account the potential value of the lands.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-objections in part, directing the parties to bear their own costs. The court fixed the compensation at Rs. 5/- per sq. yard, with the usual solatium at 15% and interest at 4% on the enhanced compensation and interest on the solatium.