The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the enhanced market value of acquired land. The Court declined to entertain the appeal citing a prior dismissal of a similar claim by another co-claimant in a connected memorandum of claim.
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.3735 of 2000
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
Fairly vast extent of land was notified for acquisition by the Government through a notification, dated 10.01.1984, published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of providing a bypass road for Gudivada town.
The appellant is the owner of Ac.0.87 cents of land in R.S.No.205/1B of Gudivada. The Land Acquisition Officer, Gudivada, the respondent herein, passed an award, dated 31.05.1986, determining the market value at the rate of Rs.53,240/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellant and others, whose lands were acquired, sought for reference. References were made and as many as 26 O.Ps. were taken up by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. So far as the claim of the appellant is concerned, it was taken up as O.P.No.12 of 1989. Through a common order, dated 30.09.1999, the trial Court enhanced the market value from Rs.53,240/to Rs.70,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellant presented this appeal. Heard Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals.
It was almost a marathon trial before the trial Court, since 26 O.Ps. were clubbed and vast extent of land was involved. The trial Court has analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in detail and ultimately, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per acre. Valid reasons were assigned either for accepting or for rejecting any document in this context. For example, though Ex.B3, dated 10.10.1983, reflected the market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per square yard, it was eschewed from consideration on account of the fact that the land covered by it was part of the Village, whereas the acquired land was far away from the same. Similarly, the document, which came into existence after the notification was also eschewed from consideration. In a way, the figure Rs.70,000/- per acre was suggested by the claimants themselves by relying on certain documents.
One factor which militates against the appellant is that A.S.No.2028 of 1998 filed by the claimant in O.P.No.16 of 1989, which too was disposed of through a
common order, dated 30.09.1999, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.12.2011. That being the case, we cannot entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J ______________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Dt:24.10.2013 kdl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can entertain an appeal when a similar claim by a co-claimant was dismissed by a Division Bench.
Whether the enhancement of market value in land acquisition proceedings can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.S.No.2028 of 1998Referred¶9
Appellant
Land Acquisition Officer, Gudivada
L. Narasimha Reddy
M.S.K. Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
