An appeal suit by the Land Acquisition Officer challenging the reference court's order enhancing compensation from Rs.8,000 to Rs.22,500 per acre for land acquisition. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the enhanced value just and reasonable based on evidence and comparable sales in the same village.
Appeal suit dismissed; 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 R.SUBHASH REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA APPEAL SUIT No.1060 of 2002
JUDGMENT: (per RSR, J)
This Appeal Suit is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, Warangal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aggrieved of order, dated 17.04.2000, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.P.No.115 of 1995.
An extent of Acs.18.05 guntas of land belonging to the respondents, situated at Ladella, Pasarugonda, Malakpet and Gatlakanaparty Villages of Warangal District, was acquired for excavation of minor canal, through a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22.01.1988. After considering the sale certificates, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the land acquired at Rs.8,000/- per acre as against the claim of the respondents at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought reference of the matter to
the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There upon, the matter was referred and tried in O.P.No.115 of 1995 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Before the reference Court, on behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.X.1 to X.6 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was let in and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the reference Court passed the impugned order enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.22,500/- per acre. As against the same, this appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.
In this case, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court in the absence of any comparable sales and any other further evidence, enhanced the market value of the acquired land without any basis. It is also submitted that as the Land Acquisition Officer surveyed the comparable sales and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,000/- per acre, the Reference Court has committed error by enhancing
the same to Rs.22,500/- per acre.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that certain lands of the same Village were acquired for the same purpose of SRSP and for the lands covered by notification, dated 02.11.1983, the reference Court under Ex.X.2 fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre. It is also submitted that under Ex.X.1, for the acquired lands of the same Village covered by notification, dated 02.03.1989, the market value was fixed by the reference Court at Rs.25,000/- per acre and the same was confirmed by this Court under Ex.X4.
It is not in dispute that the public purpose of acquisition of the land in question and also the lands covered by Exs.X.1 and X.2 is one and the same, and for the lands acquired under Exs.X.1 and X.2 –notifications, dated 02.11.1983 and 02.03.1989, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre. As the same was confirmed by this Court under Ex.X.4, we are of the view that for the land in question acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification, dated 22.01.1988, the reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.22,500/- per acre. Further, we
are of the view that having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, the market value fixed by the reference Court is just and reasonable. In view of the same, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the reference Court.
The Appeal Suit is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Appeal Suit stand closed.
______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st JANUARY, 2014.
________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reference court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land without comparable sales evidence.
Whether the enhanced compensation fixed by the reference court is just and reasonable in the facts of the case.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, Warangal
Respondents (Land owners)
R.SUBHASH REDDY
A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
