K POSAYYA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Jelluru and Yerrakaluva Reservoir to prevent inundation of agricultural lands and to control floods, was taken out and 50 acres of land was acquired as a part of Vengalrayasagar project for submersion. Notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acqisition Act, 1894, (for short, 'the Act') was published on March 22, 1979, 400 acres of land, as a part of that Scheme situated in Alivelu village in Polavaram Mandal in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh was acquired, out of which, we are concerned with about 163.80 acres in these appeals. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated July 31, 1980, fixed the market value of the lands at Rs. 400/- per acre. The lands are rain-fed in which dry crops were raised prior to acquisition. On reference under S. 18, the Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs 22,000/- per acre. The High Court in the impugned judgment in Appeal No. 1341 and batch of 1992 reduced the compensation to Rs. 400/- per acre. Thus these appeals by special leave. Shri P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that Alivelu village is situated in notified tribal area in which the Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1970 is in force which prohibits sale of the lands by the tribals to the non-tribals. The appellants being tribals could not secure any sale deed. In the neighbouring village under Ex. A-1 dated October 12, 1980 when one acre of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, the High Court was not justified in refusing to act upon the same. Equally, it is contended that in another judgment and decree of the High Court, in relation to lands acquired for Vengalrayasagar project, determined the compensation at the rate of Rupees 20,000/- per acre, the appellants are entitled at least to Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Being the tribal, they cannot afford to purchase the lands, elsewhere. The Court, therefore, should grant compensation at "reinstatement value" for rehabilitation of the tribals under Ex. A-5 and A-6, the awards made by the reference Court in OP No. 17-18/80, the Subordinate Judge awarded at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre which became final. The High Court misapplied the principle laid by this Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943, in reducing the price applying the principle of deduction of 50% to the agricultural lands. The High Court, therefore, erred in wrong application of the principles of law in determining the compensation to the agricultural land.

(3.) The question, therefore, is, what is the correct principle of law to be applied in determining the market value of vast extent of lands were acquired for a project. Admittedly, Ex. A-1 dated December 31, 1980 is the torch light for the claimants to lay higher claim. It is a post notification sale of the land situated in Chakradevarapalli. According to the claimants, it is situated at a distance of 3 to 4 kilometers from the village Alivelu. According to Land Acquisition Officer, the distance between the two villages is 30 Ks. Possession of these lands, admittedly, was taken between Apil 15, 1977 i.e. prior to the notification under S. 4(1) and July 14, 1980, shortly after the notification under S. 4(1). It would, thus, be clear that the sale deed was brought into existence after the notification and possession was taken of the lands. This is the notorious document relied in all the references running into 302. Only the attestor was examined in proof of the documents. It would be obvious that it was a brought up document to inflate the market value of the land under acquisition not only in this village but in the surrounding villages. The High Court, therefore, was right in rejecting the said document and refuse to place reliance for determination of the compensation. Exhibit A-2, judgment of the single Judge of the High Court in AS No. 2500/86 arising out of OP No. 49/84 of the same reference court. The lands therein were acquired for Vengalrayasagar project. They are the wet lands. Since the counsel for the Government did not appear and no material was placed on record and since in earlier cases, award was confirmed for a sum of Rupees 22.000/- per acre, the single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22,000/-. That is obviously illegal approach adopted by the High Court in determining the market value of project area, large tracts of lands covered by the project. It would appear that the learned Judge was not brought to the notice of other references. Therefore, it cannot be formed the basis to fix the market value at a higher rate, though the judgment may be wrong.