REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PEDDAPALLI Vs. METPALLI NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The draft notification in this case was published on 10-9-1977 stating that the land measuring about Ac. 1-88 cents situate at Khila Vanaparlhi village be acquired for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer alter considering the sale statistics and the sale deed relating to S.No. 840 for an extent of 48 cents awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 per acre. The claimant being dissatisfied filed an application for reference to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming that he is entitled for Rs. 30,000.00 per acre. After reference, on behalf of the claimant P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been examined. The claimant as P.W.-1 has filed Exs. A-1 and A-2 copies of the sale deeds dated 16-11-1981 and 10-7-1979 respectively. Ex. A-2 is an agreement of sale executed by P.W-2. Ex. A-l is the sale deed. P.W-2 stated that he sold me land in the vicinity at Rs. 30,000.00 per acre P.W.-1 stated that he is raising commercial crops like Chillies, Maize, Groundnut and vegetables and his net income would be about Rs. 5,000.00per acre.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, by taking into consideration the evidence that has been adduced, found that Rs. 8,000.00 per acre would be the reasonable amount that can be awarded in this case. Aggrieved against the said enhancement from Rs. 2,000.00 to Rs. 8,000.00, the present appeal has been filed by the Government.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contended that Ex. A-2 is only an agreement of sale that was brought out by interested parties and so it cannot be accepted though a recital has been made in Ex. A-l sale deed executed on 16-11-1981 much after the date of the Notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the date of the Award dated 9-10-1980. It is difficult for the Land Acquisition Officer or the State Government to prove that a recital in a sale deed is correct or not. If it is a dispute between interested parties or the parties to the document, the question of adducing or contesting the recitals or proof of contentions arise. But in the case of the Government it is very difficult to prove that it is ante-dated. If there is a registered agreement of sale, we can take that one into consideration as a public officer will register the same on a particular date. The possibility of creating a document with ante-date by securing old stamp papers by the interested parties who want to secure a higher compensation cannot be ruled out By practise and by experience, it has come to the light of this recitals that the recitals in the post-notification sales about the unregistered agreement of sales executed prior to the date of notification have been pressed into service. Ordinarily, where the agreement of sale is for a small extent of lard and it was not registered and only a recital is found in a post-notification sale, no credence can be given and a reasonable market value of the land cannot be determined on the basis of that recital. It must be noted here that Ex. A-2 is only for 2 guntas of land. When the sale deed was brought subsequently for a small extent with an exaggerated amount of Rs. 30,000.00 per acre even though the market rates in that village are not so high it is not desirable to accept the same. Except Exs. A-1 and A-2 there is no other evidence that has been produced by the claimant in support of his claim. P.W.-1 has exaggerated the agricultural income. The oral evidence has to be supported by revenue accounts about the crops. The revenue records are available about the nature of the crop raised in a particular land and the percentage of the yield of that crop also will find a place in them. Relying on an exaggerated version of the parties about the income from the land without any supporting documents 'like revenue records, which are admittedly available, it is not desirable for the Court to accept that interested and exaggerated version to grant compensation which is on the high side. No revenue accounts have been filed about the crops raised and a sale deed for small extent with an ante-date has been filed. These two factors ought to have been taken note of by the Court below, but the Court below was swayed away by the oral evidence and the recitals in Ex. A-l and A-2. Ex. B-1 is the award. In that also the sale particulars have been noted and those sale particulars also do not show about the abnormal prices at Rs. 30,000.00 per acre as quoted by the claimant. While considering the sale deeds pertaining to small bits of land in connection with the acquisition of land of huge extents, the Courts must approach very cautiously while deciding the reasonable compensation. Taking into account the oral evidence, this Court feels that granting of Rs. 4,000.00 per acre as against Rs 8,000.00 would be the reasonable compensation for the land acquired in this case.