Allowed

N.Sundaramanikyam v. Laoandrdo Peddapuram

Telangana HC12 Mar 2012AS/2123/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed a judgment dismissing appeals against a land acquisition award to enhance tree compensation. Finding the court erroneously assumed no material existed, the Court examined the evidence, disputed the low yield estimation, and enhanced the tree value by 100% without revising other amounts.

What did the court decide?

Common judgment is reviewed to increase tree value by 100%; other aspects of the judgment remain intact.

N.Sundaramanikyam Vs Laoandrdo Peddapuram — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

¶4

ASMP No.2499 of 2012 in AS No.1898 of 2000

¶5

and

¶6

ASMP No.2574 of 2012 in A.S.No.2123 of 2000

¶7

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶8

These applications are filed with a prayer to review the common judgment, dated 12.03.2012, passed by this Court in A.S.Nos.1898 and 2123 of 2000.

¶9

Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioners herein own lands in different survey numbers of J.Annavaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Their lands to an extent of Acs.5.35 cents and Acs.4.70 cents respectively were notified for acquisition on 21.09.1988, along with certain other lands, by publishing a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The purpose was to provide house sites to the displaced persons in Yeleswaram Reservoir Project. Possession of the land was also taken on 31.10.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 01.09.1989 fixing the market value for the land at the rate of Rs.20,160/-. So far as the trees and structures are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the same in respect of the appellant in A.S.No.1898 of 2000 at Rs.30,150/- (for trees) and Rs.45,371/- (for structures) and in respect of appellant in A.S.No.2123 of 2000, the value of the trees was fixed at Rs.4,558/- and there did not exist any structures. Not satisfied with the award, the appellants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. References were taken up as O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1990 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram. Through its order, dated 09.10.1998, the trial Court enhanced the market value for the land to Rs.55,000/- per acre. However, no enhancement was ordered in respect of trees and structures. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners filed A.S.Nos.1898 and 2123 of 2000. This Court dismissed the appeals through a common judgment, dated 12.03.2012. It was observed that no material was placed before the trial Court enabling it to enhance the compensation for trees and structures. The petitioners contend that the procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer himself in determining the compensation for trees was erroneous and in addition to that, Exs.B13 and B14 were filed before the trial Court in relation thereto. They contend that factual error has crept into the order passed by this Court, since it was proceeded as though there was no material in respect of trees and structures. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶10

Heard Sri Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals.

¶11

The concentration in the appeals was mostly in relation to compensation for trees and structures. For all practical purposes, the petitioners were satisfied with the market value for the land that was fixed at Rs.55,000/- per acre by the trial Court.

¶12

While dealing with the claim for enhancement of compensation for tress and structures, this Court has just referred to Ex.B15 and made an observation to the effect that no material was placed before the trial Court in relation to compensation for trees and structures. However, a perusal of the record discloses that Exs.B13 and B14 were filed regarding compensation for trees. It is a different matter that the trial Court did not take the same into account on the basis that R.W.9, who was examined in connection with those documents, stated that he did not place the material upon which he arrived at the conclusions; before the trial Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no material before the trial Court. Apart from that, the petitioners have also canvassed upon the accuracy of the procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶13

We are conscious of the fact that the review is not a form of appeal and an application for review cannot be treated as an occasion to re-appreciate the evidence. It is only when a substantial piece of evidence has missed from consideration of the Court, that an exercise of this nature can be undertaken. We are satisfied that this Court proceeded on the assumption that there was no material for examining the claim for enhancement of the compensation for trees and structures. We, therefore, feel that the matter needs to be examined with reference to the evidence on record.

¶14

In the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, reliance was placed upon a report submitted by the Joint Director of Horticulture. The gist thereof was reproduced in the award. A perusal of the same discloses that the number of trees and the annual yield and capitalisation was taken into account. The appellants do not dispute the figures pertaining to the number of trees. However, the yield indicated by the Land Acquisition Officer is seriously disputed. For instance, the yield for mango trees was taken as 100/- and no yield whatever was taken for mango crafts, which are 85 in number. Similarly, for soap nut trees, the yield was taken at Rs.100/- per year. For guava tree, the yield was taken at Rs.25/-. In contrast, R.W.9 submitted a report mentioning the yield of mango tree at Rs.340/- per year (for 800 fruits). Similarly, substantial variations were noticed in respect of other trees.

¶15

It may be true that R.W.9 did not place the work material before the trial Court. All the same, the figures furnished by him cannot be totally ignored. The yield for the mango grown up tree at Rs.100/- is too low and Rs.340/- at the relevant point of time can be treated as on higher side. The fact that the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on the assumption that there would not be any yield for the growing mango trees cannot be treated as proper. Though it is a matter for remand to the trial Court, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by doubling the yield for the value of the trees in both the appeals. We are not inclined to revise

¶16

the value for the structures, since it was based upon the estimate made by an Executive Engineer of the Government Department.

¶17

Hence, the applications are allowed and the common judgment, dated 12.03.2012, passed in A.S.Nos.1898 and 2123 of 2000, is reviewed only to the extent of increasing the value of the trees in both the appeals by 100%. In all other respects, the judgment shall remain intact. The enhanced amount shall carry statutory benefits.

¶18

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶19

______________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J

¶20

Dt:05.11.2013

¶21

kdl

N.Sundaramanikyam v. Laoandrdo Peddapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sundaramanikyam v. Laoandrdo Peddapuram

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

M.Jairam Rao and 15 Others Vs Spl.Dy.Collector,L.a

The P.P. A.P.H.C. Hyd. Vs Mohd. Shamshuddin Gulbargh. and 8 Ano.

Chinnam Anjaneya Swamy Vs The Official Liquidator

N.Subba Rao Vs Lao E.G.Dist.

Sri K.L. Sreedhar Reddy, Vs M/s Midwest (India) Investors Welfare Association

T.Prasada Reddy Vs T.Sumithramma