Partly allowed

R.Venkata Ramanayamma, v. The La Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC7 Mar 2012AS/3240/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court held that the compensation awarded by the reference court was low. It enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,00,000 per acre after deducting 1/3 for development, allowing statutory benefits including solatium interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 per acre. Claimants entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on solatium. No costs.

R.Venkata Ramanayamma, Vs The La Officer Cum Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

AND

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶4

APPEAL SUIT No.3240 of 2004

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶7

AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶8

APPEAL SUIT No.3240 of 2004

¶9

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed )

¶10

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram (for short “ the reference Court “) in LAOP No.16 of 2001 dated 10-2-2004, this appeal is filed.

¶11

The Government acquired an extent of Ac.3.21 cents belonging to claimant for the purpose of construction of houses to the weaker sections of the society. After following the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, ( for short “the Act”) the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.1,32,000/- per acre as compensation. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the reference Court. Accordingly, the said matter was referred to the reference Court under section 18 of the Act. The reference Court after adjudication of the matter declined to enhance the

¶12

compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this appeal.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the reference court has committed serious error in not enhancing the compensation though the land is surrounded by junior college and residential houses.

¶14

It is seen from the impugned judgment that on behalf of the claimants, as many as six witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. In the present case, the sales under Exs. P.3 to P.7 are small extents of lands and the land under acquisition is Ac.3.21 cents. Exs.P.3 to P.7 are the registration extracts of sale deeds in respect of the lands situated in Inavilli village pertaining to sale of extents of Ac.0.06 cents, Ac.0.07 cents, Ac.0.10 cents, Ac.0.05 cents and Ac.0.05 cents respectively. P.W.1 deposed that their land is very fertile land having coconut garden. The claimant also examined P.Ws.2 to 6 who deposed about the fertility of the land and as to the sale transactions under Exs.P.3 to P.7. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is seen that the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of house sites to the weaker sections of the community, and the learned Judge failed to come to a correct conclusion as to what was prevailing market value of the land as on the date of notification. It is true that though small extents of land may not be the basis for

¶15

determining the just compensation but it can definitely be taken into consideration for deciding at to the just compensation the claimant entitled to. According to Exs.P.3 to P.7 the registration extracts of sale deeds which are sold are situated in the vicinity of the land acquired, and the sale price of the land ranges from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is on lower side and therefore after effecting deductions i.e. 1/3^rd towards developmental purpose, the market value of the land would come to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. In the circumstances, the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,32,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The claimants are entitled for all statutory benefits as per law including interest on solatium. No costs.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs.

¶18

__________ ______________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶19

_________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J

¶20

DATE 7-3-2012 KK

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶22

AND

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶24

APPEAL SUIT No.3240 of 2004

¶25

7-3-2012

R.Venkata Ramanayamma, v. The La Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Venkata Ramanayamma, v. The La Officer Cum Revenue Divisional 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

N.Kazim Nawaz Jung Alias Ali Pasha Vs The Special Deputy Collector

J. Ram Reddy, Vs Bommaraju Bal Raj

Salam Bin Yousf , Salam Phaelwan Vs The Station House Officer

Smt K. Vinodini Devi , Vinodi Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy

Smt B. Aneetha Devi , Ameetha Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy

K. Sudhakar Reddy Vs K. Venkata Lakshmi