Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeal No. 26 of 1979

Advocates

For the Appellant: G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, K. Ramanuja Chari, M. Rama Mohan Rao, M.Y.K. Rayudu, Advocates.

Judges

K. Ramachandra Rao
Lakshminarayana Reddy, JJ.

Acts

SECTION 18 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
section 4 (1)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Ramachandra Rao, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from 14 batches of appeals against reference judgments made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeals challenge the enhancement of compensation by civil courts in respect of lands notified for acquisition for an industrial development area in three villages (Ramachandrapuram, Patancheru and Bandlaguda) in Sangareddy taluk, Medak district. The notification(s) under section 4(1) were published between 6-7-1974 and 11-12-1974 in most cases (two matters had later notifications in 1976). The land acquisition officer had awarded compensation at rates of Rs. 4,000/acre (dry lands), Rs. 5,000/acre (black cotton soil), and Rs. 6,000/acre (wet land). On reference under section 18, several civil courts enhanced those rates substantially — in ten batches to varying per-acre rates (Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 15,000/acre) and in some matters to per-square-yard rates (e.g., Rs. 6 or Rs. 8 per sq. yard). The government filed appeals challenging enhancements in many cases; claimants filed cross-objections for further enhancement in some appeals. The area had developed industrially since the early 1960s and adjoined National Highway No. 9; its industrial potential was uncontested and was relied upon by both sides in valuation disputes.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the civil court was justified in enhancing compensation (and, specifically, whether the enhancement to Rs. 8 per sq. yard in O.P. No. 34/1976 was correct).
Whether market value for large tracts acquired for industrial purposes should be fixed on an acreage basis rather than on a square-yard (small-plot) basis.
Whether sales of small plots or awards for house-sites (square-yard basis) are admissible or reliable guides for fixing market value of large extents of agricultural land acquired for industrial development.
Whether certified sale-deeds, basic registers (for stamp/registration valuation), local enquiry reports and consent letters are admissible and/or sufficient to fix market value as on the date of notification.
Whether the claimant had filed a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer (entitling him to seek enhancement under section 25(2)) and whether the reference under section 18 to the civil court was maintainable.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Government) — primary contentions

The enhancement awarded by the civil court (e.g., Rs. 8 per sq. yard) was excessive.
The claimant did not file a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) before the award; therefore, under section 25(2) the claimant could not seek enhancement and the section 18 reference was not maintainable.
Relied on a large body of documentary evidence (sale-deeds exs. B‑1 to B‑94, basic registers, registration statistics, local enquiry reports, etc.) and oral witnesses (RWs 1–16) to show prevailing market values lower than those fixed by the civil court.
Sought reliance on consent letters signed by pattadars agreeing to Rs. 4,000 per acre and on registration/basic registers prepared under government instructions for valuation (exs. B‑75, B‑76, and related exhibits).

Respondent (Claimant) — primary contentions

Sales of small extents (plots/house-sites) cannot be entirely ignored; they are relevant to market value.
Certified copies of registered sale-deeds cannot be taken into account if no person connected with those deeds is examined; moreover, claimants relied on sale-deeds and oral evidence (PWs 1–4) including ex. A‑1 (sale‑deed of 15‑11‑1965) and ex. A‑3 (award in O.P. 1/1975 fixing Rs. 8 per sq. yard for 148.13 sq. yards).
Claimant asserted that he filed claim(s) before the LAO and relied upon documentary statements and office entries (various exhibits) to show a claim existed prior to the award or, alternatively, that the LAO made a section 18 reference (which implies the claim had been presented for enhancement).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Collector of Lakhimpur vs. B. C. Dutta (Supreme Court)	Principle that values fetched for small plots cannot be applied to very large extents — large areas generally do not fetch the same per-unit price as small plots.	The court applied this principle to reject reliance on rates fetched for small house‑site plots (ex. A‑3) when fixing compensation for acquisition of large blocks of agricultural land intended for industrial use.
Collector, Raigarh vs. Harisingh Thakur (Supreme Court)	Sale statements by themselves, without examining vendors/vendees or attesting persons, are not admissible; but registered sale-deeds are treated differently with regard to admissibility.	The court recognized the limited admissibility of bare sale statements but accepted that registered sale-deeds could be relied upon; it evaluated registered sale-deeds and other documentary evidence accordingly.
Sub-Collector Vijayawada vs. Rahimunnisal — A.S. 729/1972 (Divisional Bench, unreported, 25‑11‑1975)	When claimants produce sale‑deeds relied upon from inception, the court should consider them even if vendors/vendees were not examined, provided no contest as to bona fides; proof may be dispensed with by consent.	The court cited this authority to support the relevance of sale‑deeds produced by claimants where there was no positive attack on their bona fides; nonetheless, here one particular sale‑deed (ex. A‑1) was doubted and other sale‑deeds were preferred.
A.S. No. 490/1966 (16‑4‑1970) & A.S. No. 620/1969 (30‑12‑1971) — Division Bench judgments of this Court (Chinnappa Reddy, K. Madhava Reddy JJ and C. Kondaiah, M. Ramchandra Raju JJ)	Where sale-deeds were admitted by consent and lands covered by those sales had advantages similar to the lands acquired, such documents were relevant even if vendors/vendees were not examined.	These decisions were cited to show that registered sale-deeds admitted into evidence (and covering lands of similar advantages) are relevant for valuation; the court considered these precedents when assessing the weight of sale-deeds and the basic registers.
Srinivasulu vs. Land Acquisition Officer	Sale-deeds may be relied upon even where vendors/vendees were not examined, if the lands in the sale-deeds are of similar quality to the lands acquired.	Cited to support the court's approach to treat relevant sale-deeds as admissible evidence when lands are comparable; nonetheless the court tested genuineness and proximity to notification date before relying on specific deeds.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a methodical assessment of documentary and oral evidence submitted by both sides, applying established valuation principles and the precedents cited in the record. The analysis proceeded in stages:

Identification of applicable valuation methods: the court recalled three established methods under section 23 — capitalisation of income, expert valuation, and comparison with sales of similar lands around the date of notification. It observed that capitalisation could not be adopted because yield/income evidence was vague and insufficient.
Scrutiny of sale-deeds: the court examined numerous sale-deeds produced by the government (exs. B‑12, B‑13, B‑14, B‑88 to B‑93, B‑15 to B‑19, etc.) showing varying per‑acre rates (some as low as ~Rs. 877/acre to about Rs. 6,750/acre). It treated registered sale-deeds as admissible but cautioned against reliance on small-plot sales for pricing large tracts (invoking Collector of Lakhimpur v. Dutta). The court found ex. A‑1 (one-acre sale for Rs.15,000 dated 15‑11‑1965) to be suspect and not a bona fide transaction in view of other contemporaneous unimpeachable sale-deeds.
Assessment of basic registers and registration-derived valuations: the government produced basic registers (exs. B‑75, B‑76) and related documents prepared pursuant to government orders for fixing guideline values for registration and stamp duty. The district judge had discounted these as merely guideline values; the appellate court disagreed, noting that these registers were prepared after local enquiries, considered registration statistics for six years, and were compiled with specific instructions (location, fertility, accessibility, irrigation, classification, industrialisation potential). The court accepted that these registers provided reasonable guidance.
Treatment of consent letters: the government relied on consent letters signed by pattadars agreeing to Rs. 4,000/acre (exs. B‑48 to B‑73). The lower court had disbelieved those documents as procured without explanation to villagers. The appellate court credited the testimony of government officers and village officials who explained the contemporaneous presence of officers, village elders and witnesses when consent letters were taken. Although the court held that such consent letters do not operate as an estoppel precluding higher claims, it concluded they were a reasonable indicator of market value at the time.
Reconciliation and allowance for industrial potentiality: after reviewing all admissible sale-deeds and the basic registers (which recorded values ranging initially around Rs. 4,000–5,000/acre and later revisions to Rs. 6,000–8,000/acre by district registrar), the court concluded that a reasonable margin should be allowed to reflect the lands' industrial potential. The court expressly held that when valuation takes into account potential for industrial use, no distinction should be drawn among dry, black cotton dry or wet land; wet land might even cost more to develop, so no higher rate for wet land was justified in this case.
Quantification: the court relied on the revised registration-stage valuations (exs. B‑83 to B‑87 showing Rs. 6,000/acre for dry lands and Rs. 8,000/acre for wet lands after revision) and added a reasonable margin of Rs. 2,000/acre to account for industrial potential, thereby fixing Rs. 10,000/acre as the fair market value irrespective of land classification.
Maintainability of enhancement claim and section 18 reference: regarding the government's contention that the claimant did not file a claim before the LAO and therefore could not seek enhancement under section 25(2), the court examined claim-related documents (exs. B‑9, B‑10, B‑20, B‑21, B‑44, B‑45, B‑46). The court found office seals, inward-register entries and related endorsements sufficiently probable to establish that the claimant had preferred a claim before the award and that a section 18 reference to the civil court had been made by the LAO. Thus the claimant was entitled to pursue enhancement.
Costs and incidental directions: the court confirmed the lower court's directions on solatium and interest and, since both parties succeeded and failed in part, directed that each party bear its own costs in the appeal and in the court below.

Holding and Implications

PARTLY ALLOWED

The court partly allowed the appeal: it set aside the lower court's finding that fixed market value at Rs. 8 per square yard for the disputed land (as determined in O.P. No. 34/1976) and fixed the market value of the lands acquired at Rs. 10,000 per acre, irrespective of whether they were dry, black cotton dry or wet lands. The court confirmed the lower court's directions regarding solatium and interest. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs in the appeal and in the court below.

Implications: Direct consequences are (a) replacement of the civil court's square-yard-based award for the subject matter with a uniform acreage‑based valuation of Rs. 10,000 per acre as on the date of notification; (b) confirmation of solatium and interest directions; (c) denial of government contention that the claimant had not filed the requisite claim before the LAO such that enhancement would be barred. The opinion does not announce the setting of a novel legal precedent beyond application of existing principles (e.g., treatment of small-plot sales, admissibility of registered sale-deeds, and weight of basic registers and consent letters) to the facts of these batches of cases.

Show full summary ...

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Through Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad v. Sohan Lal .

Ramachandra Rao, J.:-

(1) These appeals are preferred against the judgments rendered in 14 batches of references made under section 18 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter called the act). In all these batches of appeals, the land acquisition officer awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 4000/ - per acre for dry lauds, rs. 5000/ - for black cotton soil land and rs. 6000/ - for wet land. On references made under section 18 of the act in 10 batches of original petitions, the market value of the land was fixed at varying rates from rs. 6000/ - to rs. 10,000/ - for dry land, rs. 11,000/ - to rs. 11,500/ - for black cotton soil land ; and rs. 8000/ - to rs. 14,000/ - for wet land. In one other batch, the market value was fixed at rs. 15,000/ - per acre. In two other batches, the market value was fixed on square yard basis i. E. , at rs. 6/ - per square yard in one batch and at rs. 8/ - per square yard in another batch. The government has preferred these appeals challenging the enhancement of the compensation by the civil court ; whereas in some of the appeals, the claimants have preferred cross objections claiming further enhancement of compensation. The earliest of the references was decided on 21 - 10 - 1978 in o. P. No. 34/1976, by the additional district judge, medak at sangareddy, wherein both the claimants and the government had adduced elaborate evidence, both oral and documentary, for determining the market value of the lands as on the date of the notification. It may be mentioned that notification under section 4 (1) of the act, was made for equisition of the lands in question, between 6 - 7 - 1974 and 11 - 12 - 1974 in all the cases, except in tvvo matters where the notification was made on 2 - 9 - 1976 and 23 - 9 - 1976. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the location of the lands. In all these cases, a requisition was sent by the managing director of the andhra pradesh ladustrial infrastructure corporation limited, hyderabad, for acquisition of the lands in three villagesramachandrapuram, pa'cancheru and bandlaguda in sangareddy taluk of medak district, for the establishment of an industrial development area, and an extent of nearly 725 acres was notified for acquisition under different notifications. The lands in all these cases are either dry chalka lands or black cotton dry lands, and in some cases wet lands. The lands are situate on the national highway no. 9 from hyderabad to bombay. This area started developing as an industrial area with the establishment of the factory of bharat heavy electricals limited in 1961 - 62. Subsequently when subsidy for industries in the backward areas was announced by the central government, the three villages in question in medak district, which adjoin the city and situate along the national highway with an easy access to the city, began to develop into an industrial estate in 1964. Out of the lands acquired for the bharat heavy electricals limited, a portion was assigned to the international crops research institute for semi arid tropics, (for short, icrisat). The lands in ramachandrapuram now under the occupation of bharat heavy eleetricals limited and icrisat, are to the south of the national highway.

(2) Patancheru and bandlaguda villages, are to the north of the national highway, but the lands in the said villages are situate o n bothsides of the national highway. To the south of the highway, there are the regional poultry farm and other poultry farms, manjira water works and other industrial concerns, like hume pipe company, pratap steels, asian wire rope company and several other industries. There is no dispute that the land in question, has immense potential for development as an industrial area. Both the government pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the several claimants, have contended that the potentiality of the land for the establishment of industries, should be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the same.

(3) We shall take up each of the batches of appeals for consideration separately as the lower courts have dealt with these cases separately by batches. We shall first take up the appeal a. S. No. 26/1979 preferred against the order in o. P. No. 34/1976 on the file of the court of the additional district judge, medak. In these appeal, the notification under section 4 (1) of the act, was published in the gazette on 18 - 7 - 1974 and the extent of the lands notified for acquisition is ac. 7 - 10 guntas in survey nos. 34, 36/a, 36/b and 36/c of bandlaguda village. The land acquisition officer fixed the market value at rs. 4000/ - per acre, whereas the learned additional district judge enhanced the market value to rs. 8/ - per square yard.

(4) Sri g. V. L. Narsimha rao, learned counsel appearing for the appeallant raised two contentions ; firstly, that the rate awarded is excessive and secondly the claimant did not prefer a claim before the land acquisition officer for claiming enhanced compensation. Therefore the lower court could not award compensation at a higher rate than that was awarded by the land acquisition officer. While the claimant mainly relied upon ex. A - 1 sale - deed dated 15 - 11 - 1965 and ex. A - 3 the judgment in o. P. 1/1975 on the file of the district judge, medak, and the evidence of four witnessesp. Ws. 1 to 4, the government relied upon the documents exs. B - 1 to b - 94 and exs. X - 1 to x - 6 and the oral evidence of r. Ws. 1 to 16. It is well - settled that there are three methods of valuation to be adopted for determining the compensation payable under section 23 of the act. First is the capitalisation method, the second is the valuation by experts, and the third is the valuation of similar lands with reference to the sales effected it or about the date of the notification under section 4 (1) of the act.

(5) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the lower court was not justified in discarding the documentary evidence adduced by the government for fixing the market value, that the lower court erred in relying upon ex. A - 3 the judgment in o. P. No. 1/1975 in which the learned district judge fixed the market value of the land relating to 148. 13 square yards of house - site in manmole village and that the learned judge should not have taken into consideration the price fetched for a small extent of land when determining the compensation payable for acquisition of large extents of lands.

(6) On the other hand it is contended by sri m. Ramamohan rao, learned counsel for the claimant - respondent that even sales of small extents of plots cannot be ignored altogether, and that mere production of certified copies of sale - deeds without examining any person connected with the sale - deeds, cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value.

(7) In collector of lakhimpur vs. B. C. Dutta, the supreme court held that

"in determining compensation, the value fetched for small plot of land cannot be applied to lands covering a very large extent. The large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold"

(8) In collector, raigarh vs. Harisingh thakur 2, the supreme court held that the sale statement by itself without examining either the vendors or the vendees or the persons attesting the saledeeds was not admissible in evidence and could not be relied upon. But the same cannot be said with regard to the admissibility of registered sale - deeds.

(9) In an unreported judgement in a. S. 729/1972 dated 25 - 11 - 1975 (sub - collector vijayawada vs. Rahimunnisal, it was held by a divisional berch of this court that

"when the claimants have been relying on a sale from the inception and when they produced the sale - deeds into the court, the court cannot refuse to look into those documents merely because the claimants have not examined either the vendor or the vendee, in order to establish that the price paid thereunder is a reasonable one and it was a bonafide transaction. When once those sale - deeds have been produced into the court and there is no contest from the respondents, that they do not represent bonafide transactions, it is not necessary that the claimants should call either the vendor or the vendee in order to prove that it is a bonafide transaction of lands possessing similar advantages."

(10) In support of this, the learns i judges referred to the judgment of a division bench of this court in a. S. No. 490/1966 dated 16 - 4 - 1970 rendered by o. Chinnappa reddy and k. Madhava reddy jj (as they then were) , and another judgment of a division bench of this court in a. S. No. 620/1969 dated 30 - 12 - 1971 of c. Kondaiah (j as he then was) and m. Ramchandra raju j. In a. S, no. 490/1966, it was contended on behalf of the government that the saledeeds dt. 16 - 4 - 70 under txs. A - 1 to a - 8, could not be relied upon, as neither the vendors nor the vendees were examined. The learned judges repelled the contention holding that the said documents were admitted by consent, that the proof of the same was dispensed with and that the lands covered by the sales were found to have advantages similar to the lands acquired: and therefore the said documents were relevant. This judgment was followed by another judgment of a division bench in a. S. 620/1969 and batch dated 30 - 12 - 1971 (k. Nageswara rao vs. State of andhra pradesh) , as stated above.

(11) In srinivasulu vs. Land acquisition officer , it was contended on behalf of the government that no reliance could be placed upon the sale - deeds on the ground that neither the vendors nor the vendees were examined. But that contention was rejected and it was found that there was no distinction in the quality between the lands acquired and the lands covered by the sale - deeds and hence they were held to be relevant for fixing the market value of the lands.

(12) We shall refer - to the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties in support of their rival contentions. The claimant examined himself as p. W. 1. Restated that he claimed compensation at the rate of rs. 20/ - per square yard before the land acquisition officer. He produced a certified copy of the registered sale - deed ex. A - 1 dated 15 - 11 - 1965 under which an extent of one acre of land in survey no. 13 of bandlaguda village was sold at the rate of rs. 15,000/ -. Ex. A - 3 dt. 22 - 9 - 1977 is the certified copy of the judgment in o. P. 1/1975 in which compensation was awarded at the rate of rs. 8/ - per square yard and the total extent was 148. 13 square yards of house - site in manmolu village.

(13) P. W. 2 is the patwari of the village who produced ex. X - 1 the blue - print plan of the lands and ex. X - 2 the certified copy of the pahani for the year 1970 showing that some vegetables were being grown in the notified lands. He also stated that p. W. 3 sold ac. 4 - 00 of land in survey no. 60 of bandlaguda village at the rate of rs. 15,000/ - per acre in 1971 and that he sold ac. 1 - 00 of land to the bharat heavy electricals limited employees, at the rate of rs. 10/ - per square yard. Under exs. X - 3, x - 4 and x - 6, he sold 300 square yards in survey nos. 204 and 205 on 30 - 3 - 1976 for rs. 3000/ - each and the rate works out to rs. 10/ - per square yard. But these are admittedly small extents of plots for house - sites and which are post - notification sales. The land acquired is a large extent, and the price fetched under exs. X - 3, x - 4 and x - 6 cannot afford a safe guidance for fixing the market value. Though p. W. 3 stated that he sold ac. 4 - 00 of land at the rate of rs. 15,000/ - per acre in bandlaguda village in 1971, no sale - deed has been produced to support this version, and therefore no reliance can be placed upon his oral evidence. It is stated by p. W. 3 that he received a notice from the district revenue officer, sangareddy, calling upon him to pay extra stamp duty on the sale - deeds executed by him, valuing the land at the rate of rs. 20/ - per square yard. But no evidence has been adduced as to whether any further proceedings were taken pursuant to the said notice. In the absence of any such proceedings, it is not possible to accept the contention that the land sold by him was valued at rs. 20 pe. Square yard by the revenue authorities.

(14) So far as ex. A - 3 judgment in o. P. 1/1975 is concerned, that relates to the award of compensation at the rate of rs. 8/ - per square yard for 143 - 13 square yards of a house - site in manmolu village. The rate fixed for a small plot of house - site situate in a different village, cannot be taken into consideration in fixing the market value for a large extent of land which is under acquisition.

(15) Now coming to the evidence adduced on behalf of the government, firstly there are certified copies of registered sale - deeds relating to the lands in bandlaguda, ramachandrapuram and patancheru villages. The claimant filed the sale - deed dated 15 - 11 - 1965 under which an extent of one acre in survey no. 13 of bandlaguda village was said to have been sold for rs. 15,000/ -. P. W. 1 the claimant gave the statement ex. B - 9 claiming compensation for the lands acquired and also produced the sale - deed ex. B - 10 dated 20 - 11 - 1965 under which he purchased ac. 7 - 10 guntas notified for acquisition in bandlaguda village for rs. 4,000/ - , and the rate works out to rs. 551 - 72 per acre. Ex. B - 12 is a sale - deed dated 6 - 5 - 1965 in respect of ac. 10 70 cents in survey no. 13 of bandlaguda village for a consideration of rs. 37,500/ - and the rate works out to rs. 3,750/ - per acre. Under this sale - deed, the vendors narasingiri and his two sons sold the said land to cherukuri srinivasa rao, a. Krishna murthy, smt. Yerrapathi prabhavathi devi, v. Subba rao and ravi sobhanadri, who are all residents of gudi - vada. Six months later, one of the vendees under ex. B - 12 dt. 6 - 5 - 1965 cherukuri srinivasn rao, sold under ex a - 1 sale - deed dated 15 - 11 - 1965, ac. 1 - 00 for rs. 15,000/ - out of his share of ac. 2 - 06 guntas, in favour of c, venkateswara rao, a resident of perisepalli in krishna district. P. W. 1 stated that he did not know about the transactions of sales of lands in the year 1972, or 1973 or 1974 or the prevailing price per acre of the lands in bandlaguda village, that he was mainly doing money - lending business and that he did not know the purchaser or the seller under ex. A - 1. He could not also give the income from the said lands and. Also say as to whom he enquired before claiming compensation at the rate of rs. 20/ - per square yard.

(16) The next sale - deed is ex. B - 13 dated 1 - 3 - 1974, under which ac. 7 - 13 guntas of land in survey no. 26 of bandlaguda village was sold for rs. 11,500/ - at the rate of rs. 1573 - 38 p. Per acre. Under ex. B - 14 sale - deed dated 21 - 6 - 1974 an extent of ac. 9/7 guntas in survey no. 12/a to 12/e of bandlaguda village was purchased by the general trading company for rs. 45,000/ -. And the rate works out to rs. 4,900/ - per acre. The land was purchased for the purpose of an industry by the vendee and the sale of the land is also in the same village as the lands notified. Under the sale - deed ex. B - 88 dated 28 - 4 - 1972, ac. 5 - 33 gandntas in survey nos. 10 and 11 of bandlaguda village were sold for rs. 10,000/ - and the rate works out to rs. 1,890/ - per acre. P. W. 2 attested the sale - deed. Under the sale - deed ex. B - 89 dated 16 - 5 - 1973, an extent of 0 - 30 guntas in survey no. 61/e of bandlaguda village was sold for rs. 2,200/ - and the rate works out to rs. 29,33 - 33 p. Per acre. Under ex. B - 90 dated 27 - 2 - 1974, ac. 5 - 28 guntas in survey no. 2/1 of bandlagudt, village were sold for rs. 5,000/ - and the rate works out to rs. 877 - 16 p. Per acre. Under ex, b - 91 sale - deed dated 12 - 8 - 1974, ac. 5 - 02 guntas in survey no. 4 of bandiaguda village were sold f6r rs. 18,160/ - , and the rate works out to rs 3,596 - 04 p. Under exs b - 92 and b - 93 sale - deeds dated 7 - 11 - 1974, ac. 4 - 50 cents in survey nos. 28/a and 28/b of bandiaguda village were sold for rs. 17,500/ - each and the rate works out to rs. 3,888 - 88 ps the above sale - deeds relate to sales of lands in bandiaguda village.

(17) There are also other sale - deeds relating to sales of lands in patancheru, and they are exs. B - 5, b - 16, b - 17, b - 18 and b - 19. Under ex. B - 15 dated 1 - 3 - 1974, ac. 1 - 221/2 guntas in survey no. 432 were sold for rs. 6,750/and the rate works out to rs. 4,000/per acre. Under ex. B - 16 dated 5 - 6 - 1974, o - 12 guntas in survey no. 430/a were sold for rs. L,500/. - and the rate works out to rs. 2,000/per acre. Under ex. B - 17 dated 22 - 3 - 1974, o - 30 guntas in survey no. 430/e were sold for rs. 4,000/ - and the rate works out to rs. 5,333 - 33 ps. Per acre. Under ex. B - 18 dated 6 - 9 - 1972, o - 32 guntas in survey no. 492 of teegalnagar, hamlet of patan - cheru, were sold for rs. 1,500/and the rate works out to rs. 1,818 - 18 ps. Per acre. Under ex. B - 19 dated 2 - 3 - 1974, o - 35 guntas in survey no. 437 were sold for rs. 4,000/, and the rate works out to rs. 4,57143 per acre. These sale - deeds were not referred to by the learned district judge and he merely stated that exs. B - 13 to b - 19 are the other sale - deeds considered by the land acquisition officer for fixing the market value of the lands in question but did not say as to why the said sale - deeds should not be relied upon for fixing the market value of the lands in question.

(18) So far as exs. B - 89 to b - 93 are concerned, r. W. 16 the secretary of nagarjuna steels, was examined to speak to the said transactions. The said sales are bonafide transactions in respect of large extents of lands purchased for industrial purposes and all the sale - deeds exs. B - 88, b - 89 and b - 90 are prior to the notification ; whereas exs. B - 91 to b - 93 are subsequent to the notification. We think these sales evidence genuine transactions and can reasonably be taken into consideration in fixing the market value of the lands acquired. When these sale - deeds exs. B - 13 to b - 19 and b - 88 to b - 93 show that the maximum rate fetched for the lands was about rs. 6,750/ per acre, it is not possible to accept that the lands would fetch rs. 15,000/ per acre as evidenced by the sale - deed ex. A - 1 dated 15 - 11 - 1965. Under ex. B - 12 dated 6 - 5 - 1865, ac. 10 - 75 cents of land in survey no. 13 of bandiaguda'village was purchased for rs. 37,500/at the rate of rs. 37,50/ - per acre ; and it is not possible to believe that there would have been such a sharp rise of rs. 15,000/per acre in the price, within six months from the dated of ex. B - 12. Ex. A - 1 no doubt,is a registered sale - deed dt. 15 - 11 - 1965; but it does not appear to be a bona fide transaction. Even otherwise when there are other numerous unimpeachable sale - deeds which came into existence at or about the time of the notification under section 4 (1) of the act, we think it is safe to rely upon the aforesaid sale - deeds instead of ex. A - 1, the genuineness of which, is very much in doubt. Therefore, we are not inclined to act upon the sale - deed ex. A - 1.

(19) The next set of documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the government are - the basic registers exs. B - 75 and b - 76 prepared in respect of the lands in the villages bandlaguda and patancheru respectively. Ex. B - 74 is the order of the government in g. O. Ms. No. 135 dated 5 - 2 - 1974 issued by the government appointing additional staff to fix the market values of properties both in rural and urban areas of the state of andhra pradesh and for preparation of guidelines and compilation of the basic registers for the purposes of enforcement of the provisions of the stamp act. R. W 7 is the sub - registrar of vikarabad, who speaks to the documents exs. B - 74 to b - 82. Ex. B - 75 and b - 76 are the basic registers. Exs. B - 77 and b - 82 are the local enquiry reports. Exs. B - 78 and b - 80 are the basic comparative data for the lands in the two villages. Exs. B - 79 and b - 81 ars the registration statistics of the said villages. These documents were filed to show the market value. R. W - 7, the sub - registrar stated that these basic registers give the survey numbers, their extents and their approximate valaes given by the patwari. These registers were prepared after making local enquiries. No doubt rw - 1 stated that subsequently executive instructions were issued taking away the power of fixing the basic values given to the sub - registrars and that power was vested in the special tahsildars. But, that does not mean that these basic registers prepared after the local enquiry can be altogether. Ignored. Rw - 8 is the sub - registrar, sangareddy and he also speaks to the extracts exs. B83 and b84 from the basic registers relating to bandlaguda and patancheru. The market values given in the said extracts were implemented from 16 - 8 - 1975. According to these basic registers, market values were ranging from rs. 4,000/to rs. 5,000/. R. W - 9, who was also examined as p. W - 2, was the patwari of bandlaguda village and be speaks to the basic register ex. B - 75 and also the local enquiry report ex. B - 77. The market value of the lands in bandlaguda village was shown as rs. 4,000/per acre. His land of the extent of ac. 4 - 16 guntas in s. No. 35 was also acquired and the market value was shown as rs. 4,000/ per acre. Rw - 10 who was the special tahsildar, market values, medak district during the period 21 - 2 - 1975 to the end of september, 1975, stated that as the government was incurring loss regarding registrations on account or low valuations shown, in the registered documents, a scheme was implemented for fixing up the market values for the purpose of stamp duty and registration. He stated that initially the basic registers were got prepared by the patwaris of the village on prescribed proformas communicated by the government. While preparing the basic registtrs, the patwari was instructed to keep in view the location of the land, fertility of the soil (bhagana) , accessibility, irrigation facilities and classification of lands as wet and day and also keeping in view the industrialisation coming up in that area and the interest of the government taking up the lands in a particular village and the existence of industries in the vicinity. These basic registers exs. B - 75 and b - 76 for bandlaguda and patancheru were next submitted in the office of the special tahsildar by the patwaris. The sub - registrar should collect the registration statistics and compare the rates shown in the basic registers. The registration statistics will be collected from the sub - registrar's office with reference to sale transactions for six years prior to the scheme. After that, the sub - registrar will prepare the basic comparative data in the basic registers and make local enquiries. Exs. B - 77 and b - 82 are the local enquiry reports made by rw - 7. The special executive instructions to fix up the market values were issued on 17 - 12 - 1974 as per ex. B - 85. The market value of dry lands for bandlaguda and patancheru in 1974 was rs. 2,000/per acre for dry lands and rs. 3,000/per acre for wet lands. But, because of the industrial potentialities, the rates had gone up and the market value of dry lands was fixed at rs. 4,000/ - per acre, and for wet land, rs. 5,000,' per acre. In cross - examination, rw - 10 stated that he did not make the local enquiry but the data was prepared by the sub - registrar, and that the rates fixed in the basic registers came into effect on 15 - 8 - 1975. He also stated that the district registrar revised the market values from rs. 5,000/ - to rs. 8,000/per acre for wet lands and for dry lands from rs. 4,000/ to rs. 6,000/per acre as per the valuation statements exs. B - 86 and b - 83 in respect of - bandlaguda and exs. B - 87 and b - 84 in respect of patar. Cheru.

(20) The learned district judge observed that the market values mentioned in these registers were only intended as guidelines for the registration department for the purposes of stamp duty and registration charges, and that the market, values fixed for the lands as agricultural lands could not afford a proper guidance for fixing the value of the lands when they are acquired for industrial purposes. He also observed that the valuations made by the sub - registrar were overruled by subsequent executive instructions of the government under ex. B85, and therefore, the evidence of rs. 7 to 10 regarding fixation of values of the lands with reference to exs. B74 to b87 would be of no use for fixing the prevailing market value of the acquired lands. But, we are unable to agree with this reasoning of the learned district judge. The officials of the registration department as well as the revenue department were specially enjoined to fix up the market values for the purpose of stamp duty and registration. The evidence of rws 7 to 13 shows that the values were fixed after taking into consideration the relevant factors and keeping in view the guidelines issued by the government and also the registration particulars of lands for a period of six years prior to the preparation of the basic registers. The market value fixed in the basic registers would, therefore afford a reasonable guidance for fixing the market value of the lands acquired. Therefore, according to the revised rates of valuation, the market value of the lands was revised to rs. 6,000/ - per acre for dry lands and rs. 8,000/ - per acre for wet lands as per revision of the valuation, exs. B83 to b87 made by the district registrar as spoken to by rw 10. No doubt, these valuations were were fixed on the footing that they were agricultural lands. Therefore, a reasonable margin should be allowed for its potentiality of the lands for construction of buildings and for setting up industries. If the potentiality of the lands for industrial purposes is to be taken into consideration, we do not think any distinction can be drawn with regard to their valuation as dry land or wet land. As we have already held that the lands are useful for setting up industry and the market values for the said lands have to be fixed as having potential for industrial use and if so, the margin should be allowed for its potentiality for use as industrial purposes. According to the revised rates, exs. B83 to b87, the higher value for the wet lands was fixed at rs. 8,000/ - per acre. We think a reasonable margin of rs. 2,000/ - can be allowed for potentiality for industrial purpose and the market value can be fixed at rs. 10,000/ - per acre irrespective of the land being dry or black cotton dry or wet land.

(21) No doubt the sale deeds relied upon by the government show that the value of the lands was varying from rs. 4,000/ -. Per acre under ex. B19 to rs. 5,333/ - per acre under ex. B17. But, a reasonable margin can be allowed for the potentiality of the land as fit for industrial purpose and we think it is fair and reasonable to fix the market value at rs. 10,000/ - per acre.

(22) The learned government pleader relies upon exs. B48 to b73 which are all consent letters given by 38 pattedars agreeing to the payment of compensation at rs. 4,000/ - per acre for the lands acquired. Ex. B1 is a similar consent letter given by the patwari pw2. Rw6, who is the chief personal officer of the industrial infrastructure corporation at the relevant time, visited the villages patancheru and bandlaguda, requested the village officers to discuss with the pattedars about their willingness to part with the lands and fix the market price. The village officers fixed the price at rs. 4,000/ - per acre and the pattedars agreed to receive the said price and delivered possession of the same. On 15 - 4 - 1974, pw6 once again went to palancheru and the consent letters exs. B48 to b73 were signed by pattedars and the same were sent by rw6 to the special deputy collector, land acquisition, along with the covering letter ex. B47. The consent letters were attested by the surpanch and other village officers. No doubt, the respondent - claimant in this appeal did not give any such consent letter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that these consent letters ex. B1, b48 to b73 were not proved, and that it was not established that these consent letters were obtained after explaining the contents to the pattedars. The learned district judge discarded these consent letters on the ground that they were not genuine, and that the signatures of the pattedars were obtained on typed forms by rw6 without explaining their contents, and, therefore, they could not be relied upon for fixing the market value.

(23) Rw6 is a responsible officer of the government and he was the officer on special duty for the infrastructure corporation and he was associated with the requisitioning of the land for the corporation. He stated that he got the land surveyed and earmarked for acquisition for the corporation, and that rw13, the mali patel of patancheru, rw14, the patwari of patancheru, and rw9, the patwari of bandlaguda were present, and that he requested the village officers to discuss with pattedars to arrive at a price for the lands, and that the village officers came to hyderabad on 10 - 4 - 1974 and discussed the matter with him and the managing director, and as a result of the discussion, rs. 4,000/ - per acre was agreed for the lands on the road side, and rs. 3,000/ - to rs. 4,000/ - per acre for the lands which were at alittle distance, but ultimately, the government agreed to pay rs. 4,000/ - per acre for the entire block of the land spread into two villages. Therefore, rw6 visited the village on 15 - 4 - 74 and the consent letters of pattedars attested by witnessess were handed over to him at the travellers' bungalow and he sent the said consent letters exs. B48 to b73 with a covering letter ex. B47 dated 30 - 11 - 1974. In cross - examination, he categorically stated that the contents of the consent letters were explained to the pattedars, though he could not say as to who filled up the particulars in the consent letters. He a!so stated that the consent letter ex. B1 was obtained in his presence. He however stated that no consent letter was given by the claimant - respondent in this appeal.

(24) Rw9 is the patwari of bandlaguda village. He admitted that rw6 had come to patancheru on 8 - 4 - 1974 and sent for the village officers and at the instance of rw6, pw1 and the village officers sent for, the pattedars and rw6 asked them whether they were prepared 10 part with their lands in favour of the industrial infrastructure corporation. He stated that some of the villagers raised disputes and went away, and that there was no settlement. But, he stated that 5 or 6 days later, rw6 again came to patancheruvu and called the villagers and patwari. Initially he stated that he signed on a blank paper, but again stated that he signed on a typed paper in ex. B1 and that his co - sharers balaji singh and raja ram singh also affixed their thumb marks at his instance, and that patancheruvu sarpanch rw12 attested ex. B1. He also admitted his signature as attestor in ex. B48. He also admitted his attestation of the consent letters exs. B49, b50 to b58, b67 and b68. But, in cross examination, he stated that the survey number, the name of the village and the extent and value were written in in after obtaining signatures, and that no body was informed of the contents of the said documents before obtaining their signatures, and that none accepted the rate of rs. 4,000/ - per acre. He stated that the market value of the lands in bandlaguda and patancheruvu are more than rs,4,000/ - per acre, and that rw6 asked him to obtain the signatures of the pattedars and accordingly obtained the signatures and gave them to rw6, and that rw6 told him and the village officers that the lands were required for industries. Rw12 is the sarpanch of patancheru and he attested the consent letters exs. Bl and b69 to b73. Rw13 is the mali patel of patancheruvu. He stated that rw6 came to the village and the villagers were called for settlement of the price of the land and rs. 3,000/ - to rs. 3,500/ - was offered, but the villagers said that it would be better if the price was rs. 4,000/ - per acre, and that rw6 once again came to the village and only 10 or 12 persons came and the price was settled as rs. 6,000/ - per acre, and that they have taken at the rate of rs,4,000/ - per acre. He also admitted having signed the local enquiry report ex. B82.

(25) Rw 14 was the patwari of patancheruvu. He speaks to the offer of 4,000/ - by the corporation officials to the pattedars, but states that the pattedars demanded rs. 10,000/ - per acre. With regard to the consent letters, he stated thai the corporation officials came to their village and the pattedars and village officers and elders were calied for negotiations and pattedars were asked to sign and some of them signed, and that he also signed, and that ex. B - 60 contained his signature and that the corporation officials got the letters prepared, and they were in english and he did not know english, and that the pattedars signed and money was paid at the rate of rs. 4,000/ - per acre also. In cross - examination, he stated that they were not told as to what was written in ex. B - 60 which was signed by him. He stated that he signed the documents as identifying witness only and that the signatures of the pattedars were not obtained in token of their having accepted the values. No doubt, the consent letters may not operate as an estoppel against the claimants for claiming higher rate of compensation. But, jt is not possible to agree with the contention on behalf of the claimants that these consent letters were not genuine or that they were obtained without explaining their contents to the pattedars. These letters exs. B1 and b 48 to b 73 were taken in the presence of the corporation officials, the village officers and the elders. We do not think that the pattedars would have signed the letters without knowing the contents. No doubt, the particulars were filled up in ink, but that does not give rise to an inference that these tetters were got up or that the pattedars did not agree to receive rs. 4,000/ - per acre towards. The value of the lands acquired by the government. These consent letters only afford a reasonable guidence for fixing the market value though they may not be conclusive with regard to the market value preyailing on the date of the notification.

(26) The learned government pleader sought to rely upon the" pahanis ex. B - 30 to b - 39 of the years 1965 to 1974 and sethwars ex. B - 23, b - 24 and b - 27. But, these documents merely show whether the lands were follow or whether they were brought under cultivation. But they are not useful tor fixing the market value of the lands. Moreover, it is not clear either from the oral evidence or from the pahanis and sethwars, as to the nature of the crops raised or the net yield or income derived from the said lands, which is relevant only for the purpose of fixing the market value by adopting capitalisation method. The evidence with regard to the income of the yield is vague and, therefore, the capitalisation method cannot be adopted in the instant case for fixing the market value. Hence, it is unnecessary to refer to the pahanis and sethwars.

(27) The learned government pleader sought to rely upon ex. B - 25 and b - 26 which are certified copies of the classer registers. But, these registers merely show the yield per hectare of the principal crops in medak dist. And they are not relevant for the purpose of fixing the market value of the lands.

(28) Jt is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the market value should be fixed on acreage basis and not on yard basis, as large extent of land was acquired for industrial purposes. The lands acquired were admittedly agricultural lands and situated outside the municipal limits. In view oi the development of this area as an industrial estate, the potentiality of the land for industrial use is being taken into consideration for fixing the market value. For industrial purpose, large areas have to be acquired therefore, it is not safe or reasonable to fix the market value on the basis of the price fetched for small plots or house sites or on square yard basis.

(29) Sri rama mohana rao, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the price fetched for small plots cannot be ignored altogether. But, we have already held that when large extents of lands are acquired, the price fetched for small plots of land cannot be taken into consideration in fixing the market value. Therefore, the lower court was not justified in relying upon the judgment ex. A3 in o. P. No. 1/75 where compensation was awarded on yard basis for an extent of 148. 13 sq. Yards of house site in manmolu village. Moreover, when other documentary evidence like sale deeds and the market values fixed as per the basic registers are available, we do not think the market value can be fixed with reference to ex. A - 3, the award in respect of small plot of land. Further, when there are other comparable sale transactions which had taken place and which are approximate to the date' of notification, we do not think it is safe to rely upon a single solitary sale deed ex. A - 1 dated 15 - 11 - 1965, the genuineness of which is also doubtful.

(30) While determining the market value with reference to the potentiality of the land for industrial purposes, we do not think any distinction can be drawn with regard to dry, black cotton dry or wet land. In fact, development of wet land for industrial or building purposes would cost more than dry land, and, therefore, it is not possible to accept the reasoning adopted by the lower court that the market value for the wet land in the circumstances of the case should be fixed at higher rate than for the dry lands.

(31) For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that it is reasonable to fix the market value for the lands acquired on acreage basis and that rs. 10,000/ - per acre would be fair and reasonable market value as on the date of notification, whether the lands are dry, black cotton dry or wet.

(32) It is next contended by sri g. V. L. Narasimha rao, the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower court should have held that the claimant did not file the claim statement before the land acquisition officer and that therefore, he is not entitled to claim enhancement of the compensation by virtue of the provisions of sec. 25 (2) of the land acquisition act. The contention of the learned counsel is that notices, exs. B5 to b8 under sections 9 (3) and 10 of the act were served on the claimant - respondent on 14 - 10 - 1974, but the claimant filed his claim statement ex. A2 only on 8 - 6 - 1976 after that the passing of the award. The lower court found that the claimant had in fact filed the claim petition and that reference was also made to the civil court by the land acquisition officer and that therefore, the claimant is entitled to cleim enhancement of the compensation.

(33) The claimant examined as pwi stated that he received the notices under sectidn 9 of the act, that he filed a claim petition before the passing of the award and that he filed another claim petition after the passing of the award, though he could not remember the date on which the claim petition was filed. Ex. B9 is a statement given by the claim on 22 - 5 - 1976 before the land acquisition officer claiming compensation far the land of an extent of ac. 7. 10 guntas. He also filed a copy of the sale deed ex. B - 10 at the time of giving the statement ex. B - 9. Ex. B - 20 is an application dated 22 - 5 - 1976 filed on 22 - 5 - 1976 before the land acquisition officer stating that in pursuance of the notice issued by him, he had submitted a claim petitionin the office of the land acquisation officer claiming compensation and the this claim petition was missing in the said office and requested that the saidappiication might be traced out and the claim settled. Ex. B - 21 is another application filed on 31 - 10 - 1974 before the land acquisition officer stating that the amount of compensation awarded by the land acquisation officer would be received without prejudice to his rights to claim further compensation. This petition bears the seal of the land acquisition office with the date 31 - 10 - 1974. R w. 1 stated that these petitions exs. B - 20 and b - 21 were not received in his office. R. W. 5 who worked as deputy tahsildar in the office of the land acquisition office stated that the office records did not disclose any claim petition having been filed on 31 - 10 - 1974 and thatthe inward register, ex. B - 42 did not show that the original of ex. B21 was received in their office. He, stated that whenever a petition was presented before himj he would initial it and send it to the inward section and the clerk would initial and put the date on the office copy of the petition or by passing separate acknowledgment and he would put the date under his initials and thereafter, the petition would be entered in the inward register. He also stated that he recorded the statement, ex. B - 9 from the claimant. Ex. B - 44 is the original of ex - b. 20, the claim petition filed by the claimant on 22 - 5 - 1976. The deputy collector made an endorsement on ex. B - 44 "how can it miss ? ex. B - 44 is found entered in the inward register, ex. B - 45, ex. B. 46 is the petition filed by the claimant under section 18 of the land acquisition act on 10 - 5 - 1976 and the same was entered in the inward register, ex. B. 45. The claimant filed a claim petition, a. 2 on 8 - 6 - 1976 and that was also entered in the inward register, ex. B. 45 with ihe serial number as 1195. He admits in cross - examination that exs. B. 20 and 21 bear the office seal of his office but not the initials of the receiving clerk. The facts that exs. B20 and b. 21 bear the seal of the office, though not the initials of the clerk, would probabalise the version of the claimant that he would have filed a claim petition as spoken to by him before the land acquisition officer. It is specifically mentioned in ex. B - 21 that with reference to the notice dated 8 - 10 - 1974 served on 14 - 10 - 1974 the claimant submitted the objections and claim compensation at the rate of rs. 15/ - to rs. 20/ - per sq. Yard. Thus the aforesaid evidence and the probabilities go to establish that the claimant must have preferred a claim as stated by him in ex. B - 21 before passing of the award. Further, the land acquisition officer made a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the land acquisition act with regard to the claim for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act was not maintainable and that the claimant was not entitled to c jaim enhancement of the compensation.

(34) For all the foregoing reasons, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the finding of the lower court fixing the market value for the land acquired at the rate of rs. 8/ - per sq. Yard and we fix the market value at rs. 10,000/ - per acre. The directions with regard to solatium and interest given by the lower court are confirmed. As both parties have succeeded and failed in part, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal and in the court below.

The Government Of An... v. Sohan Lal .