Partly allowed

Pichiguntla Nadipi Pullanna v. The Special Deputy Collector/

Telangana HC29 Jan 2014AS/744/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals in part regarding land acquisition for the Srisailam Right Bank Canal. While a prior judgment enhanced compensation for certain categories, the Court enhanced the market value for lands under categories I, II, and III to Rs.25,000, Rs.20,000, and Rs.15,000 per acre respectively.

What did the court decide?

Market value enhanced to Rs.25,000 per acre for category-I, Rs.20,000 per acre for category-II, and Rs.15,000 per acre for category-III. Appeals allowed in part.

Pichiguntla Nadipi Pullanna Vs The Special Deputy… — 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.438, 693, 744, 1033, 1063, 1065 and 1067 of 2002

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per RSR, J)

¶4

All these seven appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aggrieved of the common judgment and decree, dated 23.03.1995, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Atmakur, in O.P.Nos.4170, 1115, 1217, 1215, 4172, 1145 and 1121 of 1987.

¶5

The claimants in the above said O.P.s are the appellants herein.

¶6

Totally, Acs.82.90 cents of land situated at Kambalapalli Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District, was acquired for excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal from 11/500 km to 12/500 km, by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 22.12.1984. The appellants/claimants participated in the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer divided the land

¶7

into four categories, namely, I) wet lands II) dry lands irrigated with K.C.Canal water III) partly developed dry lands and IV) dry lands. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.12 of 1985, dated 20.09.1985, fixing the market value of the lands under categories I to IV at Rs.11,030/-, Rs.7,547/-, Rs.7,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per acre, respectively. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants have filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for referring the matters to the civil Court and the matters were referred and tried by the learned Subordinate Judge, Atmakur, in O.P.Nos.4170, 1115, 1217, 1215, 4172, 1145 and 1121 of 1987. The reference Court passed common order, dated 23.03.1995, enhancing the market value of the lands under categories I to IV to Rs.16,545/-, Rs.11,320/-, Rs.10,500/- and Rs.10,500/- per acre, respectively. Seeking further enhancement of the compensation, these appeals were filed by the claimants, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶8

In these appeals, it is submitted by Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent that with regard to the acquisition of the

¶9

lands by aforesaid notification, dated 22.12.1984, there were appeals preferred before this Court in Appeal Suit No.431 of 2002 and batch and this Court by common judgment, dated 20.12.2012, allowed them in part enhancing the market value of the lands under categories I and II to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per acre, respectively.

¶10

From the common order passed by the reference Court, it appears that dry lands which are fit for cultivation are shown as category-II and partly developed dry lands are shown as category-III. But, the fact remains that the lands under both the said categories are registered dry lands and are being cultivated by using the water unauthorisedly from K.C. Canal. As it is not in dispute that in Appeal Suit No.431 of 2002 and batch, this Court vide common judgment, dated 20.12.2012, has enhanced the market value of the lands under category-II to Rs.20,000/per acre; having regard to the fact that the lands under categories II and III are registered dry lands as per the revenue records and further, the lands under category-II are fit for cultivation and being irrigated by drawing water unauthorisedly from K.C. Canal; in view of the fact that the lands under category-III are only partly developed in comparison to the lands covered by category-II and as the enhancement of market value in

¶11

respect of the lands under category-III is not considered by this Court in earlier batch of cases, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to enhance the market value of the lands under category-III to Rs.15,000/- per acre basing on the factors, which were already taken into consideration for enhancement of the market value of the lands under category-II.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that subject matter of this batch of Appeal Suits is covered to be allowed in part in view of common judgment, dated 20.12.2012, passed by this Court in Appeal Suit No.431 of 2002 and batch. We are in agreement with the same.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, we deem it appropriate to allow this batch of Appeal Suits in part enhancing the market value of the lands under categories I to III to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only), Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand only) and Rs.15,000/-

¶14

(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) per acre, respectively. It is needless to observe that the appellants are entitled to the statutory benefits as provided under the law.

¶15

Subject to the above, this batch of Appeals Suits is allowed in part. No order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in these Appeal Suits shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶18

29^th January, 2014.

¶19

________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J kvni

Pichiguntla Nadipi Pullanna v. The Special Deputy Collector/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pichiguntla Nadipi Pullanna v. The Special Deputy Collector/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra PRadesh Vs Sri R.V. Ramana

B. Umamaheswari, Vs The Union of India

P. Annaji Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T. Pedda Pakkiraiah Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector / La Officer

K. Madan Mohan rao Vs The State through La Officer / Rdo

P. Chinna Jambulaiah Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector / La Officer