1966 Supreme(AP) 72
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : NARASIMHAM
Land Acquisition Officer and District Welfare Officer, Kakinada - Appellant
Versus
Mattapalli Venkateswami - Respondent
Decided On : 04-01-66
The market value of the land acquired should be determined by considering comparable sales and not by considering the cost incurred for preparing the land for wet cultivation or by giving effect to the evidence that the price of lands had doubled by lapse of time.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - COMPARABLE SALES - DISTORTION OF PRINCIPLE - ENHANCED VALUES - REJECTION.
Fact of the Case:
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquisition of land for providing house sites to Harijans. The claimants were dissatisfied with the compensation and filed a reference under section 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Subordinate Judge had distorted the principle of fixing the market value with reference to comparable sales by giving effect to the evidence that the price of lands had doubled by lapse of time. The High Court also held that the cost incurred for preparing the land for wet cultivation was not a relevant consideration in determining the market value.
Issues: 1. Whether the Subordinate Judge erred in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer? 2. Whether the Subordinate Judge erred in considering the cost incurred for preparing the land for wet cultivation in determining the market value?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The method of fixing the market value by comparable sales is meant to adopt those values generally. If it were otherwise, the method would work out anomalies. A claimant could produce a sale deed of an anterior date, i.e., very much remote from the date of acquisition and call in aid a general statement that there has been a general rise in the land values and then double or treble the prices. This distorts the principle of fixing the market value with reference to comparable sales. 2. The cost incurred for preparing the land for wet cultivation is not a relevant consideration in determining the market value. The market value does not depend on what a person spends on the land. This is a consideration which leads to artificial values.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants. The compensation was computed on the values determined by the High Court with reference to the comparable sales.
( 2 ) AN extent of ac. 7-06 cents of land situated in the village of Samalkot was acquired for providing house sites to the Harijans of Jalluru village. A notification tinder section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 7th January, 1960. After an enquiry contemplated by the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award: No. 5 of 1960 dated 27th February, 1960 under section 11 of the Act. Under the award he allowed a compensation of Rs. 7,822-02. It is comprised of rs. 6,659-76 for the land and Rs. 142-00 for standing trees and Rs. 1,020-26 being the solatium of 15 per cent, of items 1 and 2. The land acquired was part of s. No. 161 and was sub-divided as S. Nos. 161/1, 161/2, 161/3 and 161/4 with varying extents aggregating ac. 7-06 cents. The land was classified as dry. But for the purpose of compensation the extent under wet cultivation was determined as ac. 1-58 cents and that which was dry as ac. 5-50 cents. The claimant of S. No. 161/3 of which comprised an extent of ac. 1-84 cents, had raised no objection to the compensation awarded. The aggrieved persons were the owneisof S. No. 161/1 (ac. 1-83 cents), S. No. 161/2 (ac. 1-77 cents) and S. No. 161/4 (ac. 1-62 cents ). For the land under wet cultivation, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at Rs. 1,096 per acre on the foot of the price paid under a sale deed for ac. 0-47 cents on llth December, 1958, Exhibit A-1. For the dry land the Land Acquisition officer observed that there were no sales of similai lands in the vicinity, in that the sale of an acre on 3rd February, 1958 under Exhibit A-2 did not form a correct basis for valuing the land under acquisition. He, however, fixed Rs. 900 per acre as fair and reasonable compensation. He observed that the claimants did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of their claims on a reference made, the dissatisfied claimants claimed Rs. 2,000 per acre for the dry extent and Rs. 4,000 per acre for the extent cultivated wet. They relied on Exhibit B-1 a sale of 1956 and Exhibit B-2 a sale of 1958, the former for the dry lands and the latter for the lands under wet cultivation. Under Exhibit B-l, an extent of ac. 10-15 cents of Jeroyati dry garden land together with mango, casuarina and cocoanut-etc. fruit bearing trees standing therein was sold, and the price-worked out at Rs. 1,397 per acre. Under Exhibit B-2 an extent of ac. 0-56 cents of "jeroyati Meraka Pallam " together with various kinds of fruit bearing trees was sold for Rs. 1,000 which worked out at Rs. 1,800 per acre. The Court, however, enhanced the values given under Exhibits B-l and B-2 and awarded enhanced compensation at Rs. 1,500 per acre for the dry land and Rs. 2,500 per acre for the dry land cultivated wet referring to it as dry wet land. The Land Acquisition officer and the claimants have both appealed against the decision of the Subordinate judge, Kakinada.
( 3 ) A. S. No. 85 of 1962 is the appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer as the appellant. A. S. Ni. 109 of 1963 is the appeal preferred by the claimants. The learned Government Pleader contended that Exhibits B-l and B-2 cannot be accepted as comparable sales ; and secondly, that even if Exhibits B-l and B-2 were accepted as comparable sales, the learned Subordinate Judge distorted the principle of the method of fixing the market value with reference to comparable sales. On these contentions he argued that the Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation.
( 4 ) THE sale deeds relating to dry land cultivated wet are Exhibits A-1 dated 11th december, 1958 and B-2 dated 21st January, 1958. The sal3 deeds relating to the dry land are Exhibits A-2 dated 3rd February, 1958 and B-1 dated 18th June, 1956. a series are relied on for the