JAWAJEE NAGANATHAM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ABILABAD AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of Ac. O. 18 guntas of land in S. NO. 155/2 of Bhuktapur village, part of abilabad town was acquired by the Government for the construction of a vegetable market by the adilabad Municipality. A draft notification dated 21-3-1975 was published in the gazette dated 17-4-1975 . The declaration under section 6 was published in the gazette on 8-5-1975. Possession of the land was taken on 21-2-1976. Before the land acquisition officer the appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per square yard. He further claimed Rs. 70,000.00 towards the cost of the building Rs. 9,000.00 towards the cost of the compound wall and Rs. 3,000.00 for a well. According to the appellant, the building, compound wall and well are existing by the date of the draft notification and he should be compensated for such building compound wall and well at the rates claimed by him. The land Acquisition officer held that the appellant constructed the building well and compound wall after the publication of the draft notification and the appellant was, therefore not entitled to be compensated for those structures. The land acquisition officer felt that the values reflected by certain sales cannot be considered for the various reasons given by him in his award. He collected some particulars regarding the annual rental values of sites in that locality and adopted the capitalisation method and fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 70,691-33 ps after making various deductions on different accounts he provided interest at 4% from the date of taking possession and ultimately awarded a sum of Rs. 90.689-03 which besides solatium also included the interest calculated till 12-1-1979. On an application by the appellant, the necessary reference under section 18 was made to the civil Court. The said reference was numbered as O.P. No. 108/79 and was disposed of by the additional district Judge, Adilabad, by his order dated 31-12-1980. The Additional district judge did not approve of the capitalisation method adopted by the land acquisition officer. He evaluated the evidence and held that the market value should be fixed at Rs. 75.00 per sq. Yard He deducted 25% towards the costs of amenities and enhanced the total additional compensation payable to the appellant by Rs. 60,810-69 p. He held that the house compound wall and well were constructed after the date of publication of the draft notification and he rejected the claim made by the appellant for compensation in that behalf he did not however indicate in that judgment as to the amounts if any awardable to the appellant in case compensation became payable to the appellant on account of the cost of such building compound wall and well. The appeal was argued once before us. By order dated 4-3-1982 we called for a finding regarding the amount of compensation that may be payable to the appellant for the building, compound wall and well. As certain documents which were filed in the appeal were not filed earlier before the Additional district Judge we also directed the Additional District judge to consider the claim of the appellant afresh in the light of those documents and in the light of any further evidence which the parties may adduce and determine afresh the point of time at which the building compound wall and the well have been erected or dug by the appellant. The learned Additional district Judge has recorded the following findings:

(2.) Mr. Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not disputed before us the correctness of the value of Rs. 65,000 towards the building compound wall and the well. He has however made the following main submissions. (1) The fixation of the market value at Rs. 75.00 is grossly low. The market value should be fixed at not less than Rs. 300.00 per sq. Yard (2) the plot is surrounded on all the four sides by roads. It is a fully developed area. There is therefore no justification to deduct 25% or any amount towards the cost of providing amenities (3) There is abundant material to indicate that the building compound wall and well were existing by the date the draft notification was published. The appellant should therefore be compensated for such structures (4) Award 4% from the date possession was taken is illegal. Interest at 6% per annum should be provided. The learned Government pleader reiterated the correctness of all the findings recorded by the additional dist. Judge.

(3.) The ac. O-18 guntas are located in ward No. 5 Block No. 7 in Adilabad yards. It is in the heart of adilabad town surrounded by residential houses. There are municipal roads on all the four sides of the site. The state Bank of Hyderabad and Andhra Bank are located on the eastern and western sides across the roads. Gandhi chowk market and Ambedkar chowk Market as also the national highway towards Nagpur are each at a distance of 200 yards from the land. The cinema theatres are situated at a distance of 50 or 60 yards from the acquired site. Three lodging houses are also situated within a distance of 200 yards from the acquired site. The con-operative consumers stores is at a short distance of 10yeards from the acquired site. There is thus no dispute that the acquired site is in a busy and important area of Adilabad Municipality. Despite the fact that the land is still registered as agricultural land in the revenue accounts, it has gained the value of a potential building area and the appellant had even paid the required converting fee in November 1974 for converting the land from an agricultural to a non-agricultural purpose. There have not however been any recent sales of lands in the neighbourhood, vis-a-vis, the date of publication of the notification under section 4 (1) the appellant has however, let in evidence of certain offers he had for the land and of transactions which took place much later than the date of section 4 (1) notification and of the values adopted by the Registration Department for lands in this area. In his evidence as R.W.2, the appellant gave out that one Dattatreya, ganapth Rao and Kansibai offered to purchase the site at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per square yard and that even during 1979, people were offering to purchase the site at Rs. 500.00 per square yard. Dattatreya of them was examined as RW-5. He runs a cloth stores. His son-in-law one Triambak is the nephew of the appellant. RW-5, is therefore closely related to the appellant and not much importance need by given to his evidence. Ganapath Rao and Kasibai were however not examined. The acquired land was in fact notified under section 4 (1) once in the year 1941, but for some reason or other the further land acquisition proceedings were not held pursuant to such notification made in the year 1941 and the land was again renotified under Sec. 4 (1) on 17-4-1975 As we will have occasion to point out, there have been proceedings between the appellant and the Adilabad Municipality regarding the right of the appellant to raise structures on a land so notified earlier in the year 1941 for the purposes of the very same municipal market. It is therefore improbable that anybody would have evinced interest in purchasing any part of the acquired land. This evidence of RW-2 and RW-5 regarding the alleged officer has not impressed us to be true. RW-5 who is a broker for sale transactions of sites gave evidence that during the year 1974-75, lands in the neighbourhood at a distance of 30 to 40 yards from the acquired land were sold at rates varying from Rs. 30.00 to Rs. 50.00 per square yard. None of the persons who acquired plots by utilising the services of R. W. 5 have been examined and the documents relevant to such alleged purchases have not either been filed. That apart, the additional district Judge fixed the market value at Rs. 75.00 per square yard which is higher than the rates disclosed by R.W.5. The evidence of R.W.5 does not therefore assume any importance sivanna (R.W.7) gave evidence of his purchase under Ex. B-9 dated 30-12-1976. He paid Rs. 14,000.00 for 50 sq. Yards. Likewise, Kishan Rao (R.D. 8) acquired title under Ex. B-10 dated 14-4-1977 in terms of which another extent of 50 sq. Yards was purchased by him for Rs. 14,000.00 These purchases reflect a market value of about Rs. 300.00 per sq. Yard for plots in the neighbourhood by the end of december, 1976 and April 1977. Possession of the acquired lnd was taken on 21-2-1976 and the vegetable market of the Municipality was either functioning or became a certainty. The prices of lands in the neighbourhood of such market would have sky-rocketed. Exs. B-9 and B-10 have come into existence about two years after the draft notification was publiched in the gazette. We do not therefore feel persuaded to place any reliance on the values reflected by Exs. B-9 and B-10 as indicating the market value of the acquired land on the date of section 4 91) notification the appellant also filed Ex. B-8 sale deed dated 24-10-1975 in terms of which 50 sq. Yards was sold for Rs. 10.000.00 that document discloses the market value at Rs. 200.00 per sq. Yard none of the parties connected with Ex. B-6, have been examined Further there is a time lag of 7 months between the date of Ex. B-6 and the date of sec. 4 (1) notification we do not feel persuaded to adopt the value reflected in Ex. B-8 sale deed for two reasons firstly, it is a post-notification sale and secondly litigation was pending regarding the acquired land between the Municipality and the appellant from some years prior to 1975. Purchasers willing to pay a higher price for a land free from litigation would not be willing to pay at the same rate for any part of the acquired land.