A LAXAMAMMA Vs. TANSILDAR L A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dry land measuring Ac. 4 -97 cents covered by S.Nos. 2 and 2A and 438 situated at Decharam village, Mothkur Taluq, was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Backward Classes and Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. Claimants 1 to 3 are the persons that are interested in the land that was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer, by taking into account the sale statistics and the potential values of the land, awarded compensation at Rs. 5,200/- for S.Nos. 2 and 2A and at Rs. 6,500/- for S.No. 438. Against that a reference has been made to the Civil Court at the instance of the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, 'the Act'). In that reference, before the Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, 9 witnessess were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-8 and Exs. B-1 to B-4 and X-1 were marked. The learned Subordinaie Judge taking into consideration the date of selection of the land for acquisition as 27-7-1982 and the date of the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as 29-12-1982, rejected the sale deeds and the agreements of sale that have been produced on behalf of the claimants. He also found that the valuation that has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is perfectly correct after disbelieving Exs. A-1, A-2 and Ex. X-l. Originally the claimants claimed at Rs. 10/- per Square Yard. But during the evidence it has come to light that they are expecting oaly Rs. 5/- per Sq, Yard. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, the claimants have now filed this appeal.

(2.) It is well settled that reasonable market value as on the date of theNotification has to be fixed either by the Tribunal or subsequently on reference by the Civil Court. The crucial date for fiixing the reasonable compensation is the date of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In this case the publication was made on 29-12-1982. The sale deeds that were relied upon by the claimants are Ex. A-1 dated 25-8-1982. Ex. A-2 dated 24-8-1982 and Ex. X-1 dated 24th August, 1982. All these three sale deeds are for small extents i.e., about 100 Sq. Yards and registered just prior to the date of Section 4(1) Notification.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants-appellantsthat the Court below ought not to have disbelieved the documents, Exs. A-1, A-2 and X-1 and the reasoning given by the learned Subordinate Judge that the claimants have got knowledge about the acquisition and therefore executed the documents, cannot be accepted. The award is only an offer and the sale statistics considered by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be taken into consideration by the Civil Court unless and until they were marked and proved. Similarly, if the claimants filed any documents and proved those documents, it cannot be said that the Civil Court has to accept them without considering the attendant circumstances under which those documents have been brought into existence. The facts that led to the acquistion of the lands are not in dispute. In the award it is mentioned that the land itself was selected for acquisition on 26-7-1982. It shows that subsequent to the date of selection only three sale deeds with small extents of lands must have been pressed into service for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. It is common knowledge that before the issuance of the Section 4(1) Notification, a minimum six months' time though not one year, is required for the purpose of ascertaining the correct area. The selection of the area and the survey that has to be made and the identification of the persons in possession of the land and other particulars are relevant for the purpose of issuing the Notification. For the purpose of survey and for the collection of the data, definitely the concerned authorities will have to visit the village and it cannot be said that prior to the issue of the Notification, the claimants have no knowledge of the acquisition. The execution of the documents with small extents of land within four months prior to the date of the publicationofthe S. 4(1) Notification clearly demonstrates the intention of the claimants to bring into existence these sale deeds under a mistaken belief that the sale deeds will be taken for granted for the purpose of fixing the compensation. Several instances have come to the notice of this Court wherein sale deeds with small extents of lands for higher consideration are pressed into service just prior to the date of the Notification. To substantiate their plea, the claimants, in this case, have also produced the agreements of sale and they were marked as Exs. A-3 to A-8. These documents on plain papers can easily be brought into existence at any time. The agreements show that the rate is Rs. 10/- per Sq. Yard., whereas the sale deeds show Rs. 5/- per Sq. Yard. The sale deed must be in consonance with the terms of the agreement of sale. It was suggested to one of the claimants that they have got knowledge about the acquisition of their lands and, therefore, they have fabricated these documents. A person who creates the documents with a view to make a wrongful gain cannot be said to be a reliable person and his evidence cannot be relied upon and it cannot be said, under any stretch of imagination, to be a genuine transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. No doubt, the lands acquired are agricultural lands situated very near to the village. When steps are being tiken for acquisition, no seller will come forward to purchase a small bit of land for higher price unless he is a willing or co-operative seller to submit himself to give evidence in the manner suggested by the land owner.