Appellate court dismissed an appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the reference court's order fixing a higher market value for acquired land. The court upheld the quantum despite the land being categorized as eroded initially.
No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending are ordered to be 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA APPEAL SUIT No.1724 of 2004
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Drainage Schemes, Ponnur aggrieved by the order, dated 08.02.2001, passed in O.P.No.102 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.
On a requisition of Engineering Department of Nagarjuna Sagar Project, the appellant-Special Deputy Collector, NSP Unit III, Narasaraopet, initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.26.15 cents from Revenue Village of Palaparru for improvement of Vogeru Vagu. The subject land of this appeal is about Ac.0.90 cents, which is part of total extent of Ac.26.15 cents notified for acquisition. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 08.07.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed award categorizing the land into two categories i.e., non-eroded lands and eroded
lands and fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre for the first category and Rs.1,000/- per acre for the second category i.e., eroded land. So far as the subject land of this appeal is concerned, considering the same as eroded land, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs.1,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the respondent – claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and his claim was tried in L.A.O.P.No.102 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.
Before the reference Court, on behalf of the respondent – claimant, CWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
The reference Court, having considered the evidence on record, more particularly Exs.B1 and B2, held that as the land of the claimant was taken possession on 01.03.1992 and was used for the purpose of Vogeru Vagu, it cannot be said that the land is eroded land and, as such, fixed the market value of the subject land at Rs.22,400/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondentclaimant.
From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the total extent of the land acquired for the purpose of Vogeru Vagu is Ac.26.15 cents. Though the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value for major portion of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre based on the registered sale deed marked as Ex.A2, so far as the subject land of the present appeal is concerned, on the ground that the same is eroded land, it was separately categorized and compensation was fixed at Rs.1,000/per acre. On appreciation of evidence on record, the reference Court found that the possession of the subject land along with other lands was taken on 01.03.1992, that it was used for the purpose of Vogeru Vagu and also that the other records also disclose that the subject land is dry land and, accordingly, recorded a finding that the subject land cannot be treated as eroded land and hence, the claimant is entitled for more compensation.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, the reference Court placed reliance on Ex.A2-certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 14.07.1982. The land of
the respondent-claimant is covered by Sy.No.47/1, whereas the adjoining land in Sy.No.47/2 under Ex.A2 was sold at Rs.20,000/- per acre in the year 1982. In view of the time gap between Ex.A2 and the present notification, the reference Court has given the benefit of escalation in price at 12% per annum and fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.22,400/- per acre. Therefore, we are of the view that the market value fixed by the reference Court is just and reasonable and there are no merits in this appeal so as to interfere with the order under appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH
REDDY
_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
13th November, 2014 v v
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer could interfere with the market value fixed by the reference court for eroded land used for Vogeru Vagu.
Whether the compensation determined by the reference court considering the land as dry and applicable escalation was just and reasonable.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Drainage Schemes, Ponnur
Respondent-claimant
R. Subhash Reddy
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
