SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA Vs. CH SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad is the appellant. He acquired-Ac.6-32 guntas in Survey Nos.61,62.63 and 68 of Bagh Amberpet belonging to the respondents for purpose of constructing a Housing Colony. A draft notification under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 6-1-1972 and the draft declaration under Section 6 was later published in the Gazette dated 13-4-1972. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were also issued on 17-4-1972 and the respondents have submitted their claim statement on 3-5-1972. An agreement dated 10-2-1972 was also entered into between the parties fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.18/- per square yard.However on 27-ll-1972a notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act was published withdrawing the acquisition proceedings. The respondents-claimants therefore sought for a reference under Section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,34,560/- consisting of Rs.2,34,435/- being the difference in the land value as the respondents had to sell away the land subsequently at Rs.10/- per square yard; while the Housing Board agreed to purchase at Rs.18/- per square yard and also for a further sum of Rs.4,00,125/-being the damages suffered by them on account of winding up of their Dairy Farm. The Land Acquisition Officer passed a Nil Award. On reference to the Civil Court, the Civil Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,416/- being the difference in the loss sustained by the respondents due to variation of price. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal

(2.) Sri T. Ramulu, the learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board submits that the Lower Court has erred in awarding damages of Rs.1,22,416/- being the difference of sale price as the sale transaction entered into by the respondents in 1974 after a lapse of about one year after the date of withdrawal of the notification cannot form the basis for fixing the compensation. It is also his contention that there is upward trend of prices in respect of the real estate in the Twin Cities, and therefore, when both parties have fixed the sale price at Rs.18/- per square yard, there is no reason to believe that the said price has fallen after the withdrawal of the notification. In any event the rate per square yard mentioned in the sale deed cannot reflect the true sale transaction as it is common knowledge that for purpose of avoiding stamp duty and registration charges parties very often resort to under valuing the sale deeds. He finally contended that even assuming that the respondents have suffered loss the respondents have not taken any steps to mitigate the loss and in the absence of proof of taking such steps, they are not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) The respondents have examined 8 witnesses besides marking Exs.A-1 to A-26. The appellant examined R.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-20.