The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aggrieved by a Reference Court's order enhancing the market value of a thatched house. The court found no merit in the appeal as the enhancement was deemed reasonable.
The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit; pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
APPEAL SUIT No.1414 of 2004
JUDGMENT: (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, YRP Unit-III, Peddapuram, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16.03.2000 passed in O.P.No.249 of 1991, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.
House-site admeasuring 96 square yards along with thatched house, belonging to the respondent, situated at J. Annavaram village, was acquired under the Act, for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 07.12.1987 and possession was taken on 11.04.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the house site at Rs.8/- per square yard and thatched house at Rs.20,718/. When the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, while confirming market value of the house site at Rs.8/- per square yard, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the thatched house from Rs.20,718/- to Rs.29,800/-.
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals for appellant.
From the evidence on record, it is clear that increase
on the structural value is only 40 per cent over and above the structural value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, in similar instances, Government itself has approved 80% over and above the structural value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
In view of the reasons stated in the impugned order, we do not find any merit, warranting interference in this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the appeal stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
November 12, 2014 MRR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court's enhancement of structural value of the thatched house warrants interference in the appeal filed under Section 54.
Whether the 40 percent increase in structural value fixed by the Reference Court exceeds the standard approved in similar instances.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, YRP Unit-III, Peddapuram
Respondent
R. Subhash Reddy
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
