Appeal against Order enhancing compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in land acquisition reference. Court found no basis for interference despite arguments that evidence regarding contemporary area was insufficient.
The appeal and miscellaneous petition filed in the appeal stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
A.S.No.1641 of 2001
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
An extent of Ac.0.46 cents of land in survey No.806/1A2 of Pithapuram, owned by the respondent herein, was acquired by the appellant in the year 1995 for the purpose of laying a bypass road. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), was published on 20.02.1994. After completing the required formalities, the appellant passed an award, dated 20.03.1995, awarding compensation @ Rs.65,000/-, per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the respondent sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Acting on the same, the appellant referred the matter to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and it was taken up as L.A.O.P.No.15 of 1996. The trial Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.65,000/-, per acre, to Rs.1,00,000/-, per acre, through its order, dated 30.10.2010. Hence, this appeal.
Learned Government Pleader for appeals submits that there was no basis for the trial Court to enhance the compensation almost by one-third. He contends that the sale deeds that were marked as documentary evidence were in respect of small extents and almost of contemporary period. He contends that the oral evidence was not of much use.
There is no appearance for the respondent.
The O.P. came to be taken up by the trial Court on a reference made by the appellant, at the request of the respondent under Section
18 of the Act. To substantiate his claim, the respondent examined PWs.1 to 12 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.7, which are registration extracts of sale deeds in respect of neighbouring lands and Exs.A.8 and A.9 are the valuation certificates issued by the Sub-Registrar, Pithapuram. As against that evidence, the appellant deposed as RW.1 and he filed Exs.B.1 and B.2. The trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, per acre.
In view of the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader, the only question that arises for consideration is as to “Whether there exist any basis for the trial Court for enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, per acre?”
It is not in dispute that, though Pithapuram became Municipality in the recent past, it was major Grampanchayat in the year 1995. It has every facet of development and as a matter of fact, it was the seat of the Kingdom, before the country became independent. The very fact that the respondent thought of laying a bypass road discloses the level of flow of traffic and the development that has taken place in the town. These are the general features.
Coming to the specifics, though as many as 12 witnesses were examined, their evidence would not be of much help in the context of determining the market value. Ex.A.1 is a registration extract in respect of a small extent of 265 square yards, which was sold for a sum of Rs.26,200/-. Be it on account of the fact that, it is subsequent to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or the one in respect of small plot of land, it cannot be a guiding factor to determine the compensation on acre basis. Exs.A.2 is the registration extract of a sale deed, dated 02.12.2005. Under the said document, an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in Pithapuram village was sold for Rs.29,000/-. The same trend is reflected in Exs.A.3 and A.4, which are of the year 1986.
There is absolutely no reason why Ex.A.2, cannot be taken into account though with certain modifications. An extent of Ac.0.10 cents of land was sold for Rs.29,000/- and at that rate, the market value for one acre would be Rs.2,90,000/-. The sale took place almost a decade before the award came to be passed. The trial Court has taken this and other aspects into account and enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/-, per acre. Strictly speaking, we are of the view that, had the respondent filed an appeal, Ex.A.2 would certainly have constituted the basis for us to further enhance the compensation. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order and decree passed by the trial Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
_______________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J.
Dated:23.10.2013 GJ
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
A.S.No.1641 of 2001
(Judgment of the Bench, delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
Date:23.10.2013
GJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there exists any basis for the trial Court for enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre?
Whether the appellate court interferes with the trial Court's enhanced compensation order in this particular appeal?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant
Respondent
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
M.S.K.JAISWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
