Dismissed

A.Gopalakrishna Reddy v. The Special Tahsildar

Telangana HC22 Dec 2014AS/439/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal was dismissed against a Land Acquisition Officer's reference to civil court. The reference court found the 2nd respondent-Temple proved title via a registered gift deed from the original owner, whereas the appellant failed to produce any document substantiating his claim of ancestral ownership, having only leased the land.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as it is devoid of merits. The award of compensation is upheld in favor of the temple.

A.Gopalakrishna Reddy Vs The Special Tahsildar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶4

APPEAL SUIT No.439 of 2004

¶5

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

¶6

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.04.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.84 of 1994 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

¶7

2. An extent of Ac.0.99 cents of land in Sy.No.627/2 of Nellore Bit-I Village, Nellore District, was acquired for the purpose of formation of 100 feet Mini Bi-pass Road. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has passed Award No.4/92-93, dated 8.5.1992. But, even before payment of compensation, the 2^nd respondent – Sri Venugopalaswami vari Temple, Mulapet, Nellore has also filed a claim petition, claiming title and compensation in the subject land. It was the plea of the 2^nd respondent-temple before the Land Acquisition Officer that though 2^nd respondent-temple is the title holder for the subject land, they were not issued any notice. In view of the claim made by the 2^nd respondent-temple, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter to the civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) and the same was tried in L.A.O.P.No.84 of 1994 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

¶8

3. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the appellant/claimant, his General Power of Attorney was examined as P.W.3 and marked

¶9

Ex.B.1 - General Power of Attorney dated 2.8.2000. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent-temple, its Manager was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent/claimant No.3, its Junior Assistant was examined as P.W.2, but no documents were marked. No evidence was adduced, either oral or documentary, on behalf of the referring Officer. The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the 2^nd respondent-temple has proved its title over the subject land and held that the 2^nd respondent-temple is entitled for the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

¶10

4. It is contended by Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the land in question was ancestral property of the appellant/claimant and devolved upon him from the maternal side and, as such, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation.

¶11

5. On the other hand, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the land in question stood in the name of the 2^nd respondent-temple. It is submitted that originally the entire land covered by Sy.No.627 admeasuring Acs.6.72 cents belongs to one Bodireddy Ranga Reddy, who is the maternal grand-father of the appellant and he has gifted Acs.2.00 of land in C.A.S.No.627, out of Acs.6.72 cents, to the 2^nd respondent-temple and based on such gift, title was passed over to the 2^nd respondent-temple and that all the revenue records disclose that the patta stands in the name of the 2^nd respondenttemple. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that under Ex.A.4, lease deed dated 7.2.1953, the appellant/claimant has taken the subject land from the 2^nd respondent-temple on lease for cultivation purpose and as such, the appellant/claimant is not entitled for compensation for acquisition of the subject land.

¶12

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶13

7 . Though the appellant is claiming title and possession over the subject land, he has not filed any document to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent-temple, the Manager of the temple was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of Gift Deed dated 5.11.1934 executed by the original owner Bodireddy Ranga Reddy in favour of the 2^nd respondent-temple. The same is reflected in Ex.A.2 Register of properties as it belongs to 2^nd respondent-temple. Further, under Ex.A.4, registration extract of lease deed dated 7.2.1953, the appellant/claimant has obtained the subject land on lease from the 2^nd respondent-temple for cultivation purpose. Exs.A.6 to A.8 are Cist receipts. Exs.A.5 and A.9 are Pattadar Pass Book and copy of No.3 Adangal, respectively, which stand in the name of the 2^nd respondent-temple.

¶14

8. It is further to be noticed that even before the reference Court, the appellant/claimant has not produced any document in support of his claim. In view of the oral evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.9, it is clearly proved that the land in question belongs to the 2^nd respondent-temple and we do not find any merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the well considered and reasoned order passed by the reference Court.

¶15

9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶16

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶17

Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶18

22.12.2014.

¶19

Msr

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND

¶21

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶22

APPEAL SUIT No.439 of 2004

¶23

22.12.2014

¶24

Msr

A.Gopalakrishna Reddy v. The Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Gopalakrishna Reddy v. The Special Tahsildar

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 Land Acquisition Officer Vs U. Janaki Ramulu

The Special Deputy Collector Vs G. Rajaiah

D.V. Krishnam Raju Vs The Land Acquistion officer, Rdo

R. Ramakrishnaiah Vs Special Dy. Collector (La)

Rage Kasaiah (Died) per LRs a- 2 to 4 Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector (Lao)

Muthyam Prakash Rao Vs The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Collector)