Allowed

Avirneni Rama Krishna, v. The Special Deputy Collector

Telangana HC25 Jun 2012CRP/2521/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition allowed. The single judge held that the High Court order was unsustainable which dismissed the application for summons to Divisional Forest Officer to testify on tree lifespan and value for land acquisition enhancement claim, as such expert evidence was crucial despite claimant's affidavit estimates.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed, I.A.No.6929 of 2011 allowed; petitioner permitted to seek summons to Divisional Forest Officer.

Avirneni Rama Krishna, Vs The Special Deputy Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2521 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 13.02.2012, in I.A.No.6929 of 2011 in L.A.O.P.No.167 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking issuance of summons to the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada to give evidence and to produce connected record, was dismissed.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent. Perused the records.

¶6

3. Petitioner herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. According to the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer has not fixed fair compensation for his Sababulu trees as he failed to take into

¶7

consideration the lifespan of the trees while estimating the compensation payable for the trees and considered only the life of the wood. Petitioner therefore sought issuance of summons to the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada for giving evidence regarding the lifespan of the trees in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner has in his chief affidavit already stated that the lifespan of the Sababulu trees is 30 years and he also estimated the value of the said trees in the chief affidavit and he can prove the same by other evidence and the testimony of the Divisional Forest Officer in that regard is not required.

¶8

4. It cannot be disputed that the Divisional Forest Officer is certainly a competent authority to depose as to the lifespan of the trees and assist the Court in estimating the proper value of the trees. As seen from the impugned order, the Divisional Forest Officer was in fact present at the time of conducting the panchanama, based on which the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. Having stated the age of the trees and also the estimated value of the trees in his chief affidavit, the

¶9

petitioner-claimant seeks to substantiate his claim by adducing necessary evidence through the Divisional Forest Officer, who is a competent authority. The rejection of the said application on the ground that the petitioner can adduce other evidence and establish his claim otherwise is wholly unsustainable. The testimony of the competent authority like the Divisional Forest Officer would certainly be of assistance to the trial Court in the matter of estimating the age of the trees and also the value of the trees while considering the question of enhancement of the compensation. The impugned order, dismissing the application on the ground stated therein, is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.6929 of 2011 stands allowed and the petitioner is permitted to seek issuance of summons to the Divisional Forest Officer for giving evidence and also to produce relevant record. Needless to state that the respondent would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

¶10

5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Civil Revision

¶11

Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶13

25^th June, 2012. Note Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy

Avirneni Rama Krishna, v. The Special Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avirneni Rama Krishna, v. The Special Deputy Collector

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

G Narayana Goud, Vs The Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector

Balarao Madhav Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Madhusudhan Cheruku, Vs The Secretary

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs Ijjagiri Rajeshwari

Rekha Vs Mohd.Rasheed

Syed Afsar Ali Khan Vs Smt.Usha Bai