Partly allowed

P. Komuraiah and 13 Ors. v. L.A.O. (Spl.Dy.Collector) Wgl

Telangana HC7 Nov 2013LAAS/613/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court enhanced the compensation fixed by the Reference Court from Rs.40,000 to Rs.60,000 per acre, relying on a prior judgment in the same mandal for acquiring similar land, noting the time gap neutralized location differences, while disallowing interest for five years.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.60,000 per acre; statutory benefits granted except interest for five years; no order as to costs.

P. Komuraiah and 13 Ors. Vs L.A.O. (Spl.Dy.Collector) Wgl — 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

L.A.A.S. No.613 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,,J)

¶4

The appeal, though numbered in the year 2013, was, in fact, presented way back in the year 2001. On account of minor procedural lapses, it could not be numbered, and with the consent of the parties, it is taken up for hearing, at this stage.

¶5

A notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 16.07.1994 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, for acquisition of Acs.58.14 guntas of land, owned by the appellants herein (except 28 ½ guntas) in three different villages, namely, Thirumalayapally, Kailapur and Nawabpet of Chityal Mandal, Warangal District, for the purpose of excavation of Branch Canals of Sri Ram Sagar Project. The Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein, passed an award, dated 10.05.1995, by fixing the market value for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. The appellants received the compensation under protest and sought for reference. The respondent accepted the request of the appellants and referred the matter to a Civil Court. The reference was taken up as O.P.No.12 of 1996 by the Court of Prinipal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Through its order, dated 05.12.2000, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellants have approached this Court, under Section 54 of the Act.

¶6

Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that there was clinching documentary evidence before the trial Court, in relation to the land covered by O.P.No.63 of 1986 within the same locality, and still, the same was not taken note of. He contends that through notification, dated 25.02.1983, the Government acquired land in Chityal Mandal for the purpose of providing house sites, and the market value for the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.10,000/- per acre was enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per acre by the trial Court. He further submits that this Court in A.S.No.1560 of 1989 enhanced the same to Rs.90,000/per acre, but in a Civil Appeal filed by the Government, the Supreme Court reduced it to Rs.60,000/- per acre. He contends that when, in respect of the land in the immediate neighbourhood acquired in the year 1983, the market value was fixed at Rs.60,000/- per acre. there was, absolutely, no basis for restricting the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre, in respect of the lands of the appellants, acquired 10 years later.

¶7

The learned Government Pleader for appeals, on the other hand, submits that the only document, which has relevance for acquisition, was Ex.A.1, dated 16.07.1994, and since it was executed on the same date, on which the notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published, the trial Court has correctly fixed the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. He contends that the lands covered by the OP No.63 of 1986 were situated in different villages and were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites, and there cannot be any comparison between the two.

¶8

The trial Court framed the following points for its

¶9

consideration:

¶10

1) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what amount?

¶11

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation for the wells and trees as claimed by them?

¶12

3) To what relief?

¶13

On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were filed. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was filed.

¶14

After taking into account the oral and documentary evidence before it, the trial Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/per acre. Therefore, the only point, that arises for consideration before us, is as to whether the appellants are entitled for any further enhancement of compensation for their lands.

¶15

It has already been mentioned that the notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 16.07.1994 in respect of Acs.58.14 guntas of land situated in three different villages of Chityal Mandal. The evidence on record discloses that though the lands are situated in different villages, they are in the immediate neighbourhood of the Mandal Headquarter i.e., Chityal. In his award, dated 10.05.1995, the respondent fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Before the reference Court, a Sale Deed, dated 16.07.1994 (Ex.A.1) was filed. Under that document, an extent of half-acre of land was sold at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. P.W.2,

¶16

the purchaser under that document, was examined. Obviously, because it is of the same date, on which the notification was published, the trial Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre.

¶17

The other documentary evidence relied upon by the appellants is Ex.A.3, which is a certified copy of judgment of this Court in A.S.No.1560 of 1989, which, in turn, arose out of O.P.No.63 of 1986. It has already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that through the notification, dated 25.02.1983, published under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government acquired the lands in Chityal Mandal for the purpose of providing house sites. Not satisfied with the compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre determined by the Land Acquisition Officer therein, the owners of the lands sought for reference, and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000/- per acre. Under Ex.A.3, this Court enhanced the same to Rs.90,000/- per acre. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in a Civil Appeal filed by the Government, the compensation in that case was reduced to Rs.60,000/- per acre.

¶18

It may be true that the lands, which are the subject matter of the present appeal, are situated in different villages and the one covered by Ex.A.3 is in the Mandal Headquarter. All the same, except that Chityal was designated as Mandal Headquarter, it does not show substantial difference. Added to that, the three villages, in which the acquired lands are situated, are said to be in the immediate neighbourhood of Chityal Revenue Village. Be that as it may, the difference as to location of the lands, which are the subject matter of Ex.A.3 on one hand, and the present appeal on the other hand, can certainly be neutralized, on account of the time gap between the

¶19

acquisitions, which is more than one decade.

¶20

We are, therefore, of the view that the compensation reflected in Ex.A.3, as modified by the Supreme Court, can be taken as holding good for the lands of the appellants also.

¶21

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.60,000/per acre. The appellants shall be entitled for statutory benefits, except that they shall not be entitled for interest, for a period of five years, as directed by this Court, while ordering certain miscellaneous petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶23

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶24

______________________ M.S.K. JAISWAL, J. 7^th November, 2013 Note: LR copy to be marked. (b/o) cbs

¶25

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

¶26

L.A.A.S. No.613 of 2013

¶27

7^th November, 2013

¶28

cbs

¶29

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶30

*AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL + L.A.A.S. No.613 of 2013 % 07-11-20013 #Pothuganti Komuraiah and others .. Appellants Vs. $ The Land Acquisition Officer, (Special Deputy Collector), Warangal, Warangal District. .. Respondent

¶31

<GIST:

¶32

>HEAD NOTE:

¶33

! Counsel for the appellants : Sri Parsa Ananatha

¶34

Nageswara Rao

¶35

^ Counsel for respondent : The Government Pleader for Appeals

¶36

? CASES REFERRED : -----

P. Komuraiah and 13 Ors. v. L.A.O. (Spl.Dy.Collector) Wgl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Komuraiah and 13 Ors. v. L.A.O. (Spl.Dy.Collector) Wgl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhas Mukherjee, Vs The Official Liquidator

Subhas Mukherjee Vs the Official Liquidator

Subhas Mukherjee Vs the Official Liquidator and 4 Others

Flsmidth a/S Vs Sandeep Sanghavi

Mr.Kakarlapudi Venkatapathi Raju Vs Smt.Kakarlapudi Kalyani

Sri T. Vasudeva Rao Vs Smt. T. Rama Devi