Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer, v. M. Sreenivasa Reddy

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014AS/2320/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismisses appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against orders fixing compensation for land acquired for an approach road. The court upheld the reference court's reduction of the compensation rate due to distance from comparable sales, finding the awarded amount just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vs M. Sreenivasa Reddy — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

APPEAL SUIT Nos.1062 & 2320 of 2002 AND 724 of 2003

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

These appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are filed aggrieved by the order, dated 31.10.2000, in O.P.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 1993 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

¶5

Since common issues arise for consideration on similar set of facts, these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶6

The lands of the respondents - claimants admeasuring Ac.0.36 cents, Ac.0.07 cents and Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.Nos.201/1, 203/2B and 206/2 respectively of Tartoor village of Jupadu Bunglow Mandal, Kurnool District, were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for formation of approach road. Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) was published in A.P. Gazette on 20.09.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has passed award fixing the compensation at Rs.6,000/- per acre for all the lands, except the land in Sy.No.201/1, for which compensation was fixed at Rs.11,000/- per acre. Not

¶7

satisfied with the same, the respondents – claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which were tried in O.P.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 1993 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. Before the reference Court, common evidence was recorded in all the three O.Ps. On behalf of the Referring Officer, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. RWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the respondents and Exs.X1 to X7 were marked. The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2000 fixing the compensation for the lands in question at Rs.1,400/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶8

In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for the appellant that though the lands acquired are larger extents, the reference Court relied on documentary evidence under Ex.X1, whereunder only 0.03 cents of land was purchased by the Gram Panchayat at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent, and fixed the compensation at Rs.1,400/- per cent by reducing 30% from Rs.2,000/- per cent. It is further submitted that the lands acquired are agricultural lands and the compensation fixed by the reference Court is excessive and exorbitant.

¶9

Having heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals and the learned counsel for the respondents, we have perused the material available on record.

¶10

In this case, it is the case of the respondentsclaimants that the lands acquired are kallam lands adjoining Tartoor village and houses are already in existence near the vicinity of the acquired lands. It is the further case of the claimants that the acquired lands are 50 meters away from the land covered under Ex.X1, whereunder the Gram Panchayat, Tartoor, purchased 0.03 cents of land at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent on 20.01.1989 for the purpose of construction of water tank. The claimant in O.P.No.13 of 1999 is examined as R.W.1. In his deposition, he has stated that the acquired lands are kallam lands, that towards the East of these kallam lands, there are houses and other kallams and that towards the East and West, Tartoor village is there. It is further stated by R.W.1 that on 20.01.1989, the Gram Panchayat, Tartoor has purchased a house site, which is few yards away from the acquired land.

¶11

The Sarpanch of Tartoor village is examined as R.W.2. In his evidence, RW.2 stated that previously one Hussain Reddy was the Sarpanch of the village and he purchased the land of Ac.0.03 cents from Rami Reddy at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent for the purpose of

¶12

construction of water tank. In his deposition, he has clearly stated that the acquired lands are at a distance of 50 meters away from the land purchased by the Gram Panchayat. One Yellaiah was examined as R.W.3. He has stated that the acquired lands are kallam lands and they are in one row adjacent to each other. He also stated that he has a house and kallam towards the south of the acquired lands and he purchased each cent for Rs.5,000/-.

¶13

From the evidence on record, it is clear that the residential houses are existing near the subject lands and 50 meters away from the subject lands, the Gram Panchayat itself has purchased Ac.0.03 cents of land at Rs.2,000/- per cent for the purpose of construction of water tank, by which it appears that the acquired lands are in close proximity to Tartoor village. In his evidence, RW.2 has clearly stated that the earlier Sarpanch has purchased Ac.0.03 cents of land that is located at a distance of 50 meters away from the acquired land, for the purpose of construction of water tank. Admittedly, the land under Ex.X1, the sale deed under which the Sarpanch of Tartoor village has purchased the land, is only Ac.0.03 cents. Inasmuch as the local authority has purchased the land under Ex.X1 for public purpose i.e., construction of water tank, there is no reason to discard the same. Under Ex.X1, the land of Ac.0.03 cents was sold at Rs.2,000/-

¶14

per cent and the notification for the acquired lands was issued on 20.09.1990, which is nearly one year eight months subsequent to execution of Ex.X1. In view of the time lag between the notification issued for the acquired land and the date of execution of Ex.X1 and also taking into consideration the extent of the land covered under Ex.X1, which is small, and the distance between it and the acquired land, the Reference Court has reduced the value reflected in Ex.X1 by 30% while fixing the compensation for the present lands. Hence, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the reference Court are in conformity with the evidence on record and the quantum of compensation fixed by the reference Court at Rs.1,400/per cent for the lands in question is just and reasonable and the same do not warrant interference of this Court.

¶15

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, in any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶17

__________________________________ JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶18

9^th June, 2014 v v

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶20

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶21

APPEAL SUIT Nos.1062 & 2320 of 2002 AND 724 of 2003

¶22

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶23

9^th June, 2014

¶24

v v

The Revenue Divisional Officer, v. M. Sreenivasa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer, v. M. Sreenivasa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Vs B. Ramesh

B.S.Pavan Kumar Vs Smt. B.S.Swapna

T.Dhan Gopal Rao Vs Smt. T.Prabhavathi

R.D.O.(L.a.O.) Kurnool Vs S.Siddappa

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs G. Venkata Ramana Reddy

Mulakala Bapineedu Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector