Partly allowed

The Land ACquistion Officer v. The Executive Engineer

Telangana HC5 Oct 2009LAAS/48/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by Land Acquisition Officer challenging enhancement of compensation from ₹3,000 to ₹12,000 per acre. Court upheld reference court's valuation based on adjacent sales despite officer's objections and awarded enhanced market value plus interest and solatium.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹12,000 per acre upheld. Interest at 9% from notification and 12% additional market value plus 30% solatium granted. No costs.

The Land ACquistion Officer Vs The Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

L.A.A.S.No.48 of 2007

¶3

Date: 05.10.2009

¶4

Between: The Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Asifabad And The Executive Engineer, I & P P.D.I.B. Division, Kaddam and another

¶5

…. Appellant

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar)

¶9

This appeal has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer/SubCollector, Asifabad under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order and decree passed in O.P.No.56 of 1998 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, dated 27.04.2006, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,000/- per acre to Rs.12,000/- per acre.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶11

An extent of Acs.1.32 guntas of land in Survey No.94 of Kothimeer Village of Dahegaon Mandal was acquired for formation of reservoir at Dubbagudem H/o. Kothimeer Village along with other lands surrendered under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Official Gazette on 27.07.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into consideration sale extracts of the surrounding lands, fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre.

¶12

As there was delay in initiating the land acquisition proceedings, the claimants of Kothimeer, Borlakunta, Keslapur Villages filed W.P.No.22801 of 1995 and this Court allowed the said writ petition directing the Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation for the acquired lands. Even Contempt Petition No.1131/97 was filed seeking a direction to implement the orders of this Court in above referred writ petition.

¶13

In order to prove their case, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the then Land Acquisition Officer was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the claimants, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

¶14

The reference Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that Exs.A.2 and A.3 pertain to the lands of Keslapur and Ityala Villages and that when the sale deeds of the same village are available there is no need to consider the sale deeds pertaining to the neighbouring villages. The reference Court relied upon Ex.B.3 sale deed and awarded compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

¶15

The learned Government Pleader for Appeals submitted that the reference Court ought to have considered Exs.A.1 to A.3 and erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per acre.

¶16

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the market value determined by the reference Court is just and reasonable and whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

¶17

The Land Acquisition Officer, who was examined was P.W.1, himself admitted that the acquired land is a black cotton soil and that the value of the wet lands is ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre.

¶18

Exs.A.1 to A.3 sale deeds have been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.A.1 is dated 13.04.1997, wherein the lands at Kothimeer Village situated in Survey No.132 in an extent of Acs.1.00 was sold @ Rs.2,000/-. Ex.A.2 is another sale deed dated 13.05.1995, wherein an extent of Acs.0.52 cents of land was sold @ Rs.1100/-. Therefore, the rate per acre comes to Rs.2,000/-. Ex.A.3 is sale deed dated 13.04.1995 wherein the land at Ityal Village situated in Survey No.132 was sold at Rs.1100/-. So the value per acre comes to Rs.2000/-.

¶19

Admittedly, the lands covered under Exs.A.2 and A.3 are from the villages of Keslapur and Ityala respectively. As rightly held by the reference that when the sale deeds pertaining to Kothimeer Village are available, there is no need to consider the sale deeds covered by Exs.A.2 and A.3.

¶20

On behalf of the claimants, besides the claimant, who was

¶21

examined herself as R.W.1 and who has spoken about the nature and the yield of the acquired lands, R.Ws.2 and 3 were also examined. Their evidence shows that under Ex.B.3 sale deed, an extent of one acre of land at Kothimeer Village situated in Survey No.101 was sold @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. It is admitted case that Survey No.101 is adjacent land to the acquired lands in Survey Nos.108, 94, 89 and 88 of Kothimeer Village. It is also an admitted case that the land covered by Ex.B.3 is also dry land. Ex.B.3 sale deed dated 16.05.1996 is just two months prior to the publication of 4(1) Notification dated 27.07.1996. Therefore, the reference Court appears to be justified in relying on Ex.B.3 and we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the reference Court in fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.12,000/- per acre.

¶22

Possession of the land was taken on 23.09.1978 i.e., much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, claimants are not entitled to interest from the date of taking possession, since the starting point for awarding the interest is the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, the claimant is entitled to interest @9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification i.e., 27.07.1996 for a period of one year and thereafter @15% per annum. The claimants are also entitled to 12% additional market value and solatium @30% on the enhanced market value.

¶23

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

A. GOPAL REDDY, J

¶25

__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶26

Date: 05.10.2009 va

The Land ACquistion Officer v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Land ACquistion Officer v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Ashok Kumar Vs N. Anjaiah

Appala Mallaiah , Golla Mallaiah Vs Appala Mallesh , Golla Mallesh

C. Ramabrahmam, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum La Officer

Andhra bank Vs a.Lokender Reddy

B.v.Srinivasa Rao Vs B.K.Ramakrishna

M/s Sakala Veerbhadraiah and Co. Vs oriental insurance Co.Ltd