IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land and structures when capitalization is not applied, ensuring just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

1. Heard Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the claimants challenging the order and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the lands to an extent of Acs. 6.30 guntas situated in Gangadhara Village, Karimnagar District, belonging to the appellants-claimants, were acquired for formation of new broad gauge single Railway line from Karimnagar to Jagtial passing through under the limits of Gangadhara Village; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Gazette on 08.07.2002; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 07.11.2002; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award No. 6 of 2004, dated 15.03.2005, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.60,000/- per acre, for both wet and dry agricultural lands.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted in the Award, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked.

6. The Reference Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre from Rs.60,000/- per acre for the acquired lands, apart from granting separate and different compensation for the tube wells and pipelines existing in the acquired lands to each of the claimants and also granted compensation for the standing crop and trees existing in the acquired lands, along with other statutory benefits under the Act. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has picked up irrelevant and undervalued sale deeds and adopted them for fixing the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the market value of the acquired land taking into consideration the fact that the acquired lands are situated in the limits of Gangadhara Mandal Head Quarters and in the vicinity of the acquired lands, there are main industrial, educational, residential and commercial developments; that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court have erred in taking note that by the time of acquisition of the subject lands, the same were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and are being sold as house sites; and that the Reference Court while determining the compensation for the tube wells and pipe lines in the acquired lands of the appellants-claimants, failed to consider Ex.P-4- Estimation prepared by PW-3 and awarded a meager sum as compensation and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 which was followed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in The Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Collector, Vijayawada vs. Shaik Bhaileem and Others, AIR 1996 AP 14.

9. In Administrator General of West Bengal’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“......The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be val