Dismissed

Lao and Spl Dy Collector Yrp Peddapuram v. K.Narayana Murthy

Telangana HC30 Dec 2010AS/1495/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against an order fixing market value for land acquired for the Yeleru Reservoir Project, the High Court upheld the reference court's valuation at Rs. 50,000 per acre. It also granted the claimant statutory interest on additional market value and solatium, dismissing the State's appeal otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed except regarding interest. Claimant entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium at reference court rates.

Lao and Spl Dy Collector Yrp Peddapuram Vs K.Narayana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR

¶5

A.S.No.1495 of 2001

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram

¶8

.. Appellant

¶9

AND

¶10

Kondapally Narayana Murthy

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

JUDGMENT: (Per. K.G. Shankar, J)

¶13

The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, passed order on 30-122000 in O.P.No.51 of 1996 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the claim by the claimant.

¶14

When Yeleru Reservoir Project was contemplated, vast lands in Visakhapatnam and East Godavari Districts were acquired. Ac.23.62 cents of land in J. Annavaram village were acquired for the Yeleru Reservoir Project. These lands are situate in different survey numbers. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.20,160/- per acre for the acquired land. Apart from Rs.1,596/- towards value of the trees, he also granted solatium and additional market value. Not satisfied with the market value as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants got the matters referred to the Civil Court under

¶15

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Three matters in O.P.Nos.50, 51 and 52 of 1996 were clubbed and were disposed of by a common order by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. Out of the three petitions, Government preferred the present appeal in respect of O.P.No.51 of 1996 questioning the impugned order.

¶16

Heard Sri S. Md. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals. The respondent-claimant was served with notice. However, no one appeared for the respondent-claimant.

¶17

The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pipthapuram placed reliance upon the judgments of separate Division Benches of this Court in A.S.Nos.972 of 1996 and 2733 of 1996 certified copies of which were marked as Exs.A.2 and A.3 in determining the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre as only wet lands were involved in these cases. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the values as adopted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, are not correct and that the values adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer were appropriate and reasonable.

¶18

The claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 before the reference Court, while the Land Acquisition Officer examined the Senior Assistant of the Revenue Divisional Office, Peddapuram, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. Where the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram adopted the valuation of the acquired properties on the strength of earlier decisions of this Court, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, was perfectly justified in adopting the market values as determined in A.S.No.2733 of 1996 as well as in A.S.No.972 of 1996 on the file of this Court. In fact, this Court awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre through the judgment in A.S.No.972 of 1996. However, this Court granted

¶19

compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre through its judgment in A.S.No.2733 of 1996. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram adopted the market value of the acquired property in accordance with the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2733 of 1996 marked as Ex.A.3. The finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in determining the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet lands following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court cannot be questioned, where the Division Bench was dealing with the lands acquired for the same purpose in neighbouring villages as the lands acquired in this present case. The judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram regarding the market value of the acquired lands deserved to be confirmed.

¶20

At the time of disposal of the case by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, the Supreme Court considered that the claimant under Land Acquisition Act would not be entitled to interest over additional market value and solatium. Subsequently, in Sundar v. Union of Indi a^[1] the Supreme Court held that the claimants in Land Acquistion references would be entitled to interest over the market value as well as solatium. Consequently, the claimant herein shall be entitled to the statutory benefit of interest over the additional market value and solatium apart from interest over the market value of the acquired property. So far as the claim of the Government that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, did not properly determined the market value of the acquired property is concerned, it is found that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram determined the market value of the acquired property correctly on the basis of various decisions of the Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in this regard is confirmed.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed except to the extent of interest portion. The claimant shall be entitled to interest over the additional market value and solatium also apart from interest over the additional market value of the acquired property at the same rates as awarded by the reference Court. No costs.

¶22

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶23

________________ K. G. SHANKAR, J

¶24

Date: 30-12-2010 Ksn

¶25

[1] 2001 (5) ALD 136

Lao and Spl Dy Collector Yrp Peddapuram v. K.Narayana Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lao and Spl Dy Collector Yrp Peddapuram v. K.Narayana Murthy

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

S.D.C and Lao Peddapuram Vs a.Nukayya and Others

Saladi Venkataramana Vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-

Manemma House Hold Duties Medak. Vs Vithal Reddy. Hindui Medak DISTAND18 Ors.

The La Officer and Spl. Dy. Collector, Vs K. Ram Reddy

K.Basavapurnamma Vs Spl.Dy.Collector Lao Tenali

L.a.Oandspl.Dy.Col Yrp Kpeddapuram Vs v.Narayana Murthy