Dismissed

The Land Acquisition Officer and v. Madarapu Venkata Ramana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2013AS/1467/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a reference Court order enhancing land acquisition compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to Rs.60,000 per acre. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding there was no basis to interfere with the trial Court's decision which relied on evidence of neighboring land values.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.

The Land Acquisition Officer and Vs Madarapu Venkata Ramana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

¶2

A.S.No.1467 of 2002

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

For the purpose of digging the canals of Eluru Reservoir Project in East Godavari District, the District Collector, East Godavari, published a notification, dated 16.10.1989, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), in respect of different extents of land in S.Thimmapuram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal. An extent of Ac.0.67 cents of land in survey No.56/1A2 of the respondents herein was notified for acquisition. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20.10.1992, fixing the market value at Rs.22,500/-. Not satisfied with that, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Acceding to the request of the respondents, the appellant referred the matter to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. Reference was taken up as O.P.No.46 of 1993. Through its order, dated 06.12.2001, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/-, per acre. The decree and order are challenged in this appeal.

¶5

Learned Government Pleader for appeals submits that the trial Court enhanced the compensation just by relying upon Ex.R.2, the decree in O.P.No.283 of 1990 and batch on the file of the same Court and the same cannot constitute the basis, unless the facts that are specific to that case are taken into account and discussed at length. He submits that the only basis for enhancing the compensation would be to verify the market value for the immediate neighbouring lands and such an effort was not made in this case.

¶6

Sri M.Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the subject-matter of decree in O.P.No.283 of 1990 and batch was the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the acquired lands, and that the extent of enhancement in the instant case, is relatively less. He contends that when in O.P.No.283 of 1990 the compensation was enhanced from 18,500/- to Rs.60,000/-, per acre, directing enhancement of the compensation from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.60,000/-, is somewhat disadvantageous to the respondents.

¶7

In view of the extensive arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is as to, “Whether the enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land of the respondents from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.60,000/- can be sustained?”

¶8

The trial Court framed following points for its consideration in the O.P:

¶9

a) “Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land is not proper? If so, what is the proper market value to be fixed?

¶10

b) Whether there are coconut trees in the acquired land and whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation for the trees as claimed?”

¶11

On behalf of the claimants, i.e. the respondents herein, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were filed. Except that PW.1 has deposed on behalf of the appellant i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer, no other oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶12

The determination of market value is complex process. The value of each piece of land depends upon its location, utility and other similar factors. In arriving at the market value, be it the Land Acquisition Officer, or the Court, guided by the factors like the price,

¶13

which the land, that has same potential in the same locality, would fetch. In the process, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the land, which is acquired and the one, that is compared, are to be taken into account.

¶14

The land of the respondents was acquired for the purpose of digging a canal. Naturally, various extents in the same village as well as in the neighbouring villages, were acquired for the same purpose. It is no doubt true that the respondents did not file any sale deeds in respect of similar lands. However, they have filed the certified copies of the judgment and decree in O.P.No.283 of 1990 on the file of the same Court and it was marked as Ex.R.2. It was clearly mentioned that the subject-matter of Ex.R.2 is the land in the immediate neighbourhood and acquired for the same purpose. Neither before the trial Court, nor this Court, the appellant is able to point out that Ex.R.2 does not relate to the neighbouring land or covering the lands that were acquired for the same purpose.

¶15

On an analysis of Ex.R.2, the trial Court found that for the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.18,000/-, per acre and on taking into account, the oral and documentary evidence adduced therein, the trial Court enhanced it to Rs.60,000/-, per acre. In the instant case, the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer himself is Rs.22,500/-, per acre, i.e. about Rs.4,000/- more than the market value for the land covered by Ex.R.2. It is not clear as to whether the notification for both the lands is one and the same.

¶16

Be that as it may, enhancement of the compensation for the land of the respondents to Rs.60,000/- can not at all be said to be on any higher side. Strictly speaking, the difference of Rs.4,000/- in the values fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for both the pieces of land

¶17

ought to have been reflected in the enhancement also. To be objective and be in conformity with Ex.R.2, the trial Court enhanced the compensation just to Rs.60,000/-, per acre. It is not pleaded before us that the decree passed in O.P.No.283 of 1990 was either modified or otherwise interfered with by this Court. Hence, we do not find any basis to interfere with the decree passed by the trial Court.

¶18

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶20

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶21

_______________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J.

¶22

Dated:23.10.2013 GJ

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

¶24

A.S.No.1467 of 2002

¶25

(Judgment of the Bench, delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶26

Date:23.10.2013

¶27

The Land Acquisition Officer and v. Madarapu Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Officer and v. Madarapu Venkata Ramana

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

Boga Limbadri Vs Smt. Roopa D/o. Kotha Kamraiah

B. Vikram Kumar Vs Smt. B. Hemalatha , Rukmini

Smt. Anjamma , Anajali Devi, Vs K. Sudershan Reddy

Spl Dy Collectorandlao. La. Port Dev. Kaki Vs Manga Apparao

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Vs Kandakam Siddi Ramappa (Died) L.Rs.

The La Officer Cum Mro, Vs P. Krishna Murthy