MUMMIDI APPARAO Vs. NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of three special leave petitions arises from land acquisition proceedings and the matter in dispute is the rate of compensation for the acquired lands as determined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. SLP (Civil) Nos. 3635 and 3711 of 2007 were filed on behalf of claimants/landholders and SLP (Civil) No. 4177 of 2007 at the instance of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. for whose benefit the lands were taken in acquisition. In course of hearing, counsel appearing for the claimants/landholders stated that they accepted the compensation fixed by the High Court and did not wish to challenge the High Court judgment any longer; hence, SLP (Civil) Nos. 3635 and 3711 of 2007 are dismissed as not pressed. This leaves us to consider SLP (Civil) No. 4177 of 2007 filed by the industrial establishment for which the acquisition was made.

(2.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired altogether about 600 acres of land for the petitioner, Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. for creation of green-belt around the industrial unit and for laying down pipes for supply of water etc. The present SLP is in regard to lands measuring to an area of 41.05 acres out of the total acquisition. The area of 41.05 acres, forming the subject-matter of dispute, was acquired in two proceedings. For the area of 6.11 acres the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 25 January, 1991 and the acquisition proceeding was concluded in award No. 1/92. Another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2 December, 1991 for the area of 34.94 acres and the second proceeding concluded in award No. 2 of 1992. For the purpose of fixing the rate of compensation the Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands covered by award No. 1/92 in two categories. For category one lands he fixed the market value @ Rs. 42,000/- per acre and for category two lands @ Rs. 35,200/- per acre. The market value for the lands covered under award No. 2/1992 was fixed at the uniform rate of Rs. 37,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value as indicated above by firmly holding that the lands in question were purely agricultural in nature. He also referred to an earlier acquisition under award No. 10 of 1988, dated 19 October, 1988. In the earlier case the matter had gone up to the High Court and the High Court had determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 82,600/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer observed that there was no distinction between the lands covered by award No. 10 of 1988 and the present lands and hence, the rate of compensation fixed for the earlier acquisition would be a good basis for fixing compensation in the present proceeding. (See award of the Land Acquisition Officer at Pp.30, 31 and 34 of the SLP brief).

(3.) Aggrieved by the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer the landholders took the matter to the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. Before the reference court it was strongly urged on behalf of the claimants/landholders that the Land Acquisition Officer grossly erred in treating the acquired lands as merely agricultural lands. The claimants/landholders submitted that having regard to their location and the developments all around the acquired lands had fully the potential of developing into housing sites and as a matter of fact were fast taking up that character; small pieces of land in close vicinity of or even abutting on the acquired area were being sold for construction of dwelling units. In support of their submission the claimants/landholders relied upon a number of sale deeds (Exts.B2 to B7) produced in evidence before the reference court. The reference court accepted the case of the claimants/landholders and the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada by his judgment dated 30 October, 2000 held that the sale deed Ext. B2 formed a sound basis for fixing the rate of compensation for the acquired lands. Exhibit B.2 is in regard to the sale of a piece of land, 110 sq. yards in area, that took place on 23 July, 1990 for a consideration of Rs. 14, 850/-. The Principal Senior Civil Judge observed that the piece of land sold under the sale deed Ext.B.2 just abutted on the acquired land. He also observed that though the sale transaction was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer he rejected it on the ground that it related to S. No. 248 where house sites were already made, whereas the acquired land was not readily fit as a housing site. Discussing the evidentiary value of Ext. B.2 the Civil Judge observed as follows :