NAGESWARA RAO P Vs. I A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge arising under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Land of the claimants was acquired and, of course, there was a dispute with regard to the extent of the land - whether it was Acs. 12-50 cents as claimed by the appellant- claimants or Acs. 9-30 cents. It was held that the land acquired was Acs. 9-30 cents and, as such, notification in that regard was issued. We take it that the land acquired was Acs. 9-30 cents. Section 4 (1) notification was gazetted on 16-9-1978. Possession was taken over on 20-11-1978. The Land Acquisition Officer rendered the award on 27-3-1981 and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the same, reference under Section 18 was sought for and the Civil Court answering reference by its award on 29-2-1984 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The appellants not satisfied with the same, have preferred A.S. No. 611 of 1986 but the learned Judge has dismissed the same. Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the compensation awarded by the Civil Court was on the low side and that clinching documentary evidence was available and the learned single Judge ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre which was claimed by the appellants. While evidence was adduced by the appellants, no evidence was adduced by the Referring Officer (Land Acquisition Officer). Documentary evidence, Exhibits B-1 to B-16, was adduced by the appellants. Exhibit B-l is the valuation statement. It is only for the stamp duty and registration purpose and that too for the year 1981 and has got no relevance at all. Exhibits B-13,14, 15 and 16 are sale deeds but they were rightly rejected by the learned single Judge as the purchasers or the witnesses to the documents were not examined to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the said transactions and more so as the executants are the claimants themselves, be it Puwada Sanjeeva Rao or Puwada Pullaiah. But there is no reason to brush aside the agreements to sell. Agreements to sell simpliciter without registration may cast doubt because the claimants themselves are executants. But when the agreements to sell were registered one year before the Section 4 (1) notification they cannot be brushed aside or ignored even though the Courts should be more cautious to see whether the said agreements of sale are genuine or not. For this purpose, to show the genuineness of the agreements of sale, the appellants examined R.W.5, namely, K.V. Ramakrishna Rao, R.W.6, namely, G. Ramesu, and R.W.7, namely Vemula Natrajeswara Rao, who are Vyshyas by caste. They are neither relatives nor friends of the appellants and not even a suggestion was made on behalf of the State that they were either interested to cook up the documents or to help the appellants to claim higher compensation. It cannot be said that the agreements to sell cannot be relied for the purpose of determination of compensation.Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Government Pleader, vehemently submits that the agreement of sale cannot be relied upon. But there is no bar for agreements to be considered for arriving at compensation in land acquisition cases. It is, however, the duty of the Court to arrive at a conclusion -on the basis of the evidence adduced that the said agreements of sale are not brought into effect only to claim higher compensation amount and that they are real and not bogus. Applying the said test, we are satisfied that the agreements to sell which have been filed into Court can be relied upon for determination of compensation for the reasons: (1) That they have been registered: (2) That purchasers thereof were examined: (3) That no rebuttal evidence was adduced to doubt their authenticity; and (4) That not even a suggestion was made that the above witnesses examined in respect of taking agreements to sell were interested in the appellants claiming higher compensation. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer and also in the award by the trial Court a reference to some sale deeds of 1975 was made which, if taken into consideration, will justify that the compensation cannot be more than Rs. 30,000/- per acre. But it was held in Collector, Raigarh vs. Harisingh Thakur that mere reference to sale deeds in the award or even the filing of the list of sales is not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be relied upon, without examination of the vendees, et cetera.