Partly allowed

P. Munar Basha v. The Land Acquisition Officer

Telangana HC21 Mar 2012AS/1802/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The higher court allowed an appeal filed by land owners challenging the compensation amount. While upholding the enhancement from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 13,000 by the lower court, it further increased the market value to Rs. 20,000 per acre due to an ignored sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part, with the market value of the land enhanced from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 20,000 per acre.

P. Munar Basha Vs The Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶2

A.S. NO. 1802 OF 1998

¶3

Between:

¶4

1. P. Munar Basha S/o Mushkim Sahed and two others

¶5

………….Appellants

¶6

AND

¶7

The Land Acquisition Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and four others

¶8

………….Respondents

¶9

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

¶10

Claimants-Respondents 1, 4 and 5 in O.P.No. 23 of 1984 are the appellants herein. They filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.8.1996 passed in O.P.No. 23 of 1984 by the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle, whereby the reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 13,000/per acre.

¶11

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government acquired various extents of land owned by the claimants in S.No. 427 of Molakalacheruvu Village viz., an extent of Ac. 15.86 cents for the establishment of regular market yards. Out of Ac. 15.86 cents only an extent of Ac. 14.60 cents was acquired by the Government by issuing a draft

¶12

notification. In the remaining extent of Ac. 1.26 cents, there were dwelling houses, shops, groundnut factory and a Muslim tomb. Draft notification and draft declaration were published on 11.8.1980 and simultaneously an urgency clause under Section 17(4) was invoked by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer taking into consideration about 21 sales within the prescribed period of three years awarded Rs. 10,000/- per acre. But the first claimant filed his claim statement claiming Rs. 40,000/- per acre stating that the acquired land was fit for location of factories, cinema theatres and the land is situated just nearby railway station at the junction point of three roads. Being dissatisfied with the Award, the claimants sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act under protest and the Award has been accordingly referred to and taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle in O.P.No.23 of 1984. The learned Judge upon

¶13

appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record enhanced the market value of the land from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- per acre Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the claimants-respondents 1, 4 and 5 .

¶14

3. In order to establish their claim, claimants examined RWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. B1 to B5 and Exs. C1 to C3 and none were examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer but the Court below only examined CW-1 Nagamal Reddi, Advocate/Commissioner

¶15

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Judge erred in relying upon the alleged sale dated 27.2.1979 under which the land was sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,000/- for 0.50 cents and he ought to have relied upon the registered sale deeds, which were marked as Exs. B2 to B6. He also contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that Exs. C1 and C2 would go to show that the land under acquisition

¶16

is abutting the Madras, Bombay Trunk Road and also situated very near to the commercial and residential centres like theatres, shops, houses, factory and Indian Bank.

¶17

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the order passed by the Court below is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed.

¶18

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record.

¶19

7. As seen from the record, Ex. B5 is the registration copy of the sale deed dated 6.8.1980 and RW-6 is the purchaser thereunder. That sale was just two months prior to the date of sending draft notification proposals to the Collector on 11.8.1980. RW-6 purchased Ac. 0.60 cents for Rs. 2,000/- for the purpose of construction of house. But according to him he sold it away to one Chowala Balappa after

¶20

five or six years of his purchase for a total consideration of Rs. 60,000/- but he has not filed that sale deed. Ex. C1 shows the development only towards East of the road but not to the West of the road. The acquired land is situated only to the West of the road, whereas towards East of that road, the existence of houses are shown by the Commissioner when he visited it, which was 10 years after the date of acquisition. In those circumstances, the Reference Court thought it fit that Ex. B5 cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of market value.

¶21

8. Further, the evidence of Advocate Commissioner examined as CW-1 is very significant and his evidence makes it clear that on one side of the acquired land, the Old Madras Bombay trunk road is situated and on all other three sides there are number of houses abutting the acquired land and the houses are situated only at a distance of one furlong from it towards north, and theatre, houses, Indian Bank and groundnut factory are all situate at a

¶22

distance of one furlong from the acquired land. Therefore, the reference Court disbelieved the evidence of claimants and enhanced the market value from Rs. 3,000/- per acre to Rs. 13,000/- per acre.

¶23

9. Be that as it may, the Land Acquisition Officer has ignored the sale deed dated 6.6.1980 under which, the land was sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 33,300 per acre in S.No. 388/A4, while fixing the market value of the land. Hence, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the market value of the land is enhanced from Rs. 13,000/- per acre as fixed by the Reference Court, to Rs. 20,000/- per acre.

¶24

10. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the market value of the land from Rs. 13,000/- per acre to Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The order of the Reference Court shall remain as it is on all other aspects and the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits as apportioned by the Reference

¶25

Court on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶27

_____________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J DATE: 21.03.2012 KA

... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1. 2 CD copies.

P. Munar Basha v. The Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Munar Basha v. The Land Acquisition Officer

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.R. Srinivas Vs Dharmavaram Sridevi

The Managing Director Vs Gade Rami Reddy

Kambbhampati Venkata Krishna Sastry Vs Smt.Kambhampati Padmavathi

The Lao and Rdo. Yrp. Peddapuram Vs Reddy Ganeswara Rao

Sri K. Dhana Raju, Vs Smt. K. Verahalamma

The La Officer and R.D.O, Vs S. venkata Rao