Dismissed

G. Thirupathaiah v. The Land Acquisition Officer cum

Telangana HC11 Nov 2014AS/3399/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed two appeals regarding land acquisition compensation. The court held that sale transactions in 1989 predated the 1992 notification and wet land sales were not comparable. It found Rs. 50,000 per acre to be just and reasonable for developed land intended for house sites.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals filed by the Claimant and the Land Acquisition Officer were dismissed as devoid of merits.

G. Thirupathaiah Vs The Land Acquisition Officer cum — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

A.S.Nos.3399 and 881 of 2003

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶4

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.07.2002 in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1994 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District, enhancing the compensation for the subject land from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits, A.S.No.3399 of 2003 is filed by the claimant seeking further enhancement of compensation, and A.S.No.881 of 2003 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, questioning such enhancement of compensation by the reference Court.

¶5

2. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in A.S.No.3399 of 2003 filed by the claimant.

¶6

3. An extent of Acs.10.32 cents of land in Sy.Nos.805/2, 806 and 807 of Kanigiri town, Prakasam District, belonging to the appellant/claimant was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Lorry workers. A draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), was published on 07.03.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed

¶7

Award No.1/92, dated 31.03.1992, fixing compensation for the acquired land at Rs.21,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the appellant/claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.31 of 1994 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

¶8

4. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the appellant/claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, R.Ws.1 and 2, who are Mandal Revenue Officer and retired Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanigiri, respectively, were examined and Ex.B.1, copy of the Award dated 31.3.1992 was marked. Copies of the Commissioner’s report dated 31.7.2001 and Plan dated 31.7.2001 filed by the Commissioner were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2, respectively. The reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, enhanced the compensation for the subject land from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.

¶9

5. Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, contends that the subject land is situated in Kanigiri town, which is a developed area, and though the lands in the vicinity were sold at not less than Rs.1,00,000/per acre during the relevant period of issuing Notification for acquisition of the subject land, the reference Court has fixed market value for the subject land at Rs.50,000/- per acre only. The learned counsel would further contend that though it is

¶10

evident from the award itself, in which the sale data collected by the Land Acquisition Officer shows that the lands in the vicinity were sold at more than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, the reference Court has restricted the market value for the subject land at Rs.50,000/- per acre.

¶11

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that though Exs.A.1 to A.4, copies of registered sale deeds relied upon by the appellant/claimant relate to small extents of lands, the reference Court has considered the said documents without giving suitable deduction towards development of the area and fixed market value for the subject land at Rs.50,000/- per acre. He would further contend that Ex.A.5, copy of registered sale deed dated 16.3.2001 is a sale transaction of post-Notification and hence the same is not helpful for the claimant to enhance the market value for the subject land.

¶12

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material on record.

¶13

8. It is to be noticed that though in the impugned order, several sale transactions that have taken place during the year 1989 were referred to under Exs.A.1 to A.4, wherein the lands were sold at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, the reference Court has discarded the said documents on the ground that the said transactions relate to wet lands and some of the transactions relate to the lands, which are far away from the subject land

¶14

acquired, and that some other transactions relate to small extent of lands. In the absence of any evidence to prove the distance between the subject land acquired and the lands sold under the said documents, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the appellant/claimant is entitled for higher compensation as per the sale data referred to under Ex.B.1 Award dated 31.3.1992.

¶15

9. Coming to the exemplar sale transactions under Exs.A.1 to A.4, under Ex.A.1 copy of sale deed dated 5.6.1989, an extent of 400 square yards of land in Sy.No.862 was sold for Rs.4,600/-; under Ex.A.2 copy of sale deed dated 10.6.1989, an extent of 264 square yards of land in Sy.No.801 was sold for Rs.3,000/-; under Ex.A.3 copy of sale deed dated 1.9.1989, an extent of 240 cents of land in Sy.No.866 was sold for Rs.2,800/-; and under Ex.A.4 copy of sale deed dated 27.7.1990, an extent of 121 cents of land in Sy.No.800 was sold for Rs.1,210/-. Considering the price reflected in the aforesaid documents, approximately, the market value of the land can be calculated at ranging from Rs.48,400/- to Rs.55,000/- per acre. At the same time, it is to be noticed that the Notification for acquisition of the subject land was issued on 7.3.1992, whereas the sale transactions under Exs.A.1 to A.4 took place during the year 1989. So far as Ex.A.5 is concerned, the sale transaction under the said document took place on 16.3.2001 i.e., 9 years after issuance of Notification

¶16

dated 7.3.1992 for acquisition of the subject land. In view of the date of sale transactions under Exs.A.1 to A.4 and in the absence of any other evidence to show that the lands in the vicinity were being sold at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, we are of the view that no case is made out by the appellant/claimant to seek further enhancement of compensation.

¶17

10. At the same time, though the value of the lands sold under Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds is ranging from Rs.48,400/- to Rs.55,000/- per acre, such sale transactions took place in the year 1989, whereas the Notification for acquisition of the subject land was issued on 7.3.1992. Further, from the Award dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is evident that wet lands were being sold at about Rs.1,00,000/per acre. Having regard to the specific purpose of acquiring the subject land for providing house sites to the Lorry workers and as the subject land is situated in Kanigiri town, which is a developed area, we are of the view that fixation of compensation for the subject land by the reference Court at Rs.50,000/- per acre is just and reasonable and the same represents the true market value as on the date of issuing Notification for the acquisition of the subject land. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer also.

¶18

11. For the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly they are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed.

¶20

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶21

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 11.11.2014. Msr

¶22

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

¶23

A.S.Nos.3399 and 881 of 2003

¶24

11.11.2014 Msr

G. Thirupathaiah v. The Land Acquisition Officer cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Thirupathaiah v. The Land Acquisition Officer cum

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 Spl. Dy. Collector (Lao) Vs Varada Subramanyam

Bharat Biotech International Limited Vs Rites Limited

T. Hanmanth Reddy Vs The Land Acquisition Officer/ Mandal Revenue Officer

Spl Dy Collector/La/Somasila Project Vs a.Chinna Obula Reddy and Another

Ch.Brahmeswara Rao Vs Special Deputy Collector

Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Vs Gurram Thirupathaiah