SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L A Vs. VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of first appeals have been filed by the State complaining against the various awards passed by the Court of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in several Land Acquisition O. Ps. referred to it by the Collector under Sec. 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 for determination of proper compensation payable to the land owners.

(2.) In all these cases the lands situated within the revenue limits of Gokavaram. Kurnool District, had been acquired by the State under a notification made under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and dated 18th April, 1974. The Land Acquisition Officer had passed awards on 12-3-1979 awarding compensation payable to these lands. The extents of lands acquired vary from 15 cents to 20 cents and more. The owners were affected by acquisitions were mostly small farmers. The rate of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer varied from Rs. 1, 300/- to a maximum of Rs. 2,000/- per acre. The owners were dissatisfied with that rate of compensation. The dissatisfied owners had therefore asked the Collector'to refer the matter of compensation in all these cases to Civil Courts for determination of proper compensation. The matters were accordingly referred to the Court. Before the Civil Court, only one witness was examined on behalf of the Land Acqusition Officer and two documents Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the claimants for higher compensation, three witnesses were examined and Ex. B-1 which was a sale deed of a small extent of land of a neighbouring village called Jutur was marked. Under Ex. B-1, Ac. 0-35 cents of land was sold at about the rate of Rs. 5, 000/-per acre. Before the Civil Court, parties had agreed that no comparable sale deeds of Gokavaram village were available. Exs. A-l and A-2 sale deeds on which the Land Acquisition Officer had relied upon to fix the compensation at a lower rate were not proved to be the sales of comparable lands. The Civil Court had, therefore, refused to place reliance on Exs. A-1 and A-2 sale deeds. In view of the fact that Ex. B-l was admitted to be the only sale deed of a comparable land spread on record, the Civil Court accepted Ex. B-1 and fixed compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. It also fixed 6% interest per annum as payable on the amount of compensation from the date of taking possession, i.e. 18-5-1979, till the date of payment. It was against those awards that the present appeals had been filed. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the claimants were paid only half of the enhanced compensation as fixed by the Court below. The other half of the enhanced compensation was deposited into Court, by the State. But the deposited amounts could not be withdrawn by some of the claimants, because those of them could not furnish security as required by the conditional stay orders of this Court.

(3.) On an examination of the evidence on record, it appears to me that the Land Acquisition Court acted rightly in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. That award is supported not only by the oral evidence of R.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 but also by Ex. B-1 which is not denied to be the only document showing comparable sale. In view of the fact that Exs, A-1 and A-2 sale deeds were not shown by the evidence of P.W. 1 to represent any comparable sale of any comparable lands, the lower Court had rightly refused to place reliance on them. Consequently the only evidence for the Land Acquisition Court to act upon being the evidence of the claimants and as that evidence supported the fixation of compensation at Rs. 4,545/- per acre and as the Land Acquisition Court fixed compensation at the reduced rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre, the various awards based upon that rate of compensation cannot be found fault with at the instance of State.