Allowed

Mummaneni Lakshmeeswari v. R.D.O. (Lao) Gudiwada

Telangana HC24 Oct 2013AS/1952/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced land acquisition compensation from Rs.66,000 to Rs.1,20,000 per acre. Relying on an adjacent small plot sale, the bench deemed the original award insufficient for land abutting an industrial estate.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,20,000 per acre, and the appellant was entitled to statutory benefits. The miscellaneous petition was disposed of.

Mummaneni Lakshmeeswari Vs R.D.O. (Lao) Gudiwada — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

¶4

A.S. No.1952 of 2001

¶5

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

¶6

A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 20.04.1987 in A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary, proposing to acquire Acs.3.11 cents of land in Gangadharapuram of Gudivada Mandal, for the purpose of extension of the existing industrial estate. The appellant is the owner of Acs.2.86 cents of land and Kaza Sobhana Kumari, respondent in O.P.No.39 of 1990, is the owner of remaining extent of land.

¶7

The Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein, passed an award on 03.03.1990, fixing the market value at Rs.55,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellant and Sobhana Kumari sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The respondent referred the matters to the civil Court. Thereupon, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada took the references as O.P.Nos.38 and 39 of 1990. Through a common order, dated 14.02.2001, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.66,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellant preferred this appeal.

¶8

Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that there was voluminous oral and documentary evidence, which is to the effect that the market value of the land at the relevant point of time was more than Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and still, the trial Court did not enhance the market value to a proper level. He submits that even if Exs.A1 to A8 are to be ignored on account of the fact that they are either agreements of sale or deeds of cancellation thereof, there is Ex.A10 under which Ac.0.13 ½ cents of land in the immediate neighborhood was sold at the rate of Rs.2,22,000/- per acre and still, the trial Court has eschewed that from consideration. He submits that the land was abutting an existing industrial estate and has already acquired the potential of being put to residential or industrial use.

¶9

The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court has taken into account the relevant factors and enhanced the compensation to the extent it was possible. He contends that various sale deeds that

¶10

are filed by the appellant were in relation to small plots of either Gudivada Town or nearby locality and when large extent of land is acquired, that too, for expansion of industrial estate, the value cannot be determined on such basis.

¶11

As observed earlier, the notification covered an extent of Acs.3.11 cents. While the appellant is the owner of Acs.2.86 cents, one Kaza Sobhana Kumari was the owner of remaining extent of land. Reference in respect of the land of the appellant was taken up as O.P.No.38 of 1990 and that of Sobhana Kumari was taken up as O.P.No.39 of 1990. The trial Court clubbed both the O.Ps. and recorded common evidence.

¶12

On behalf of the appellant and other claimant, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B13 were filed. The compensation was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.66,000/- per acre.

¶13

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the compensation for the land acquired from the appellant warrants any further enhancement?

¶14

Even from the text of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, it is evident that there was an existing industrial estate nearby Gudivada and the land of the appellant was acquired for expansion of that estate. From that, it becomes clear that the land of the appellant was abutting an industrial estate and had acquired potentiality.

¶15

The appellant filed Exs.A1, A3 to A5, which are agreements of sale said to have been executed by her in favour of various persons and the deeds of cancellation thereof marked as Exs.A6 to A8, in view of publication of notification. By any standard, those documents cannot be taken into account. The other evidence comprised of 5 sale deeds, marked as Ex.A9 to A12, executed between 1985 and 1987. The sale deeds of the year 1987 cannot be taken into account. Ex.A9 was in relation to a small house site and Ex.A11 and A12 are also in relation to small bits of land.

¶16

It is only in Ex.A10 that Ac.0.13 ½ cents of land was purchased for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. On acre basis, it comes to Rs.2,22,222/-. Even though the size of the plot can be treated as small, it can certainly provide guidance in ascertaining the market value, because it is contemporaneous to the acquisition. We

¶17

are satisfied that Ex.A10 would reflect the market value for the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the land acquired from the appellant. Since it is in respect of a relatively smaller extent, substantial deduction needs to be made towards roads and other facilities. The purpose of acquisition being expansion of industrial estate, some other open spaces are required to be maintained apart from roads. We are of the view that as against the market value of Rs.2,22,222/- for the land covered by Ex.A10, Rs.1,20,000/- can be adopted for the land acquired from the appellant. This would broadly accord with the principles enunciated by Courts for determination of market value. We are not referring to the other oral and documentary evidence in detail, since Ex.A1 can certainly be an important factor in arriving at correct market value.

¶18

Hence, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. The appellant shall be entitled to the statutory benefits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

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

¶20

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY ,J ______________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J

¶21

Dt:24.10.2013

¶22

kdl

Mummaneni Lakshmeeswari v. R.D.O. (Lao) Gudiwada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mummaneni Lakshmeeswari v. R.D.O. (Lao) Gudiwada

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

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

D.Swarnalatha Vs Lao(Sub Collector)Tenali

Smt. Tummala Palli Annapurnamma Vs The La Officer

Ati Venkata Sridhara Sai Ram, Vs Smt. Ati Venkata Devaki