Dismissed

The Land Acquisition Officer/ v. Vanam Venkatrama Prasad

Telangana HC30 Jan 2014AS/903/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land Acquisition Officer appealed the Reference Court's enhanced compensation award. The court held that despite the impeachable sale record, other oral evidence supported the awarded amount as reasonable forconstructible land and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit was dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

The Land Acquisition Officer/ Vs Vanam Venkatrama Prasad — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.903 OF 2002

¶3

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

¶4

This Appeal Suit is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Miryalaguda under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved of the order, dated 22-02-2001 in O.P. No.4 of 1995, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.

¶5

2. The Government acquired an extent of Acs.1-07 guntas, situated at Narsimhulagudem village of Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District in the year 1988, for the purpose of widening the road leading from Tripuraram to Kukkadam village. Pursuant to the same, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 21-10-1991. The Appellant - Land Acquisition Officer, Miryalaguda, after conducting enquiry, passed the award, dated 05-11-1993, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre for wet lands and at Rs.4,000/- per acre for dry lands.

¶6

3. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by

¶7

the appellant, the Claimants sought for reference, to an extent of

¶8

Ac.0-39¼ guntas, and the same was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, which was taken on file as O.P. No.4 of 1995. The Reference Court – Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, after an elaborate enquiry, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/per acre, by impugned order, dated 22-02-2001. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶9

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the appellant and perused the material on record.

¶10

5. Notices sent to respondent Nos.2 to 4 returned un-served. Though notices are served on respondent Nos.1 and 5 to 12, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶11

6 . In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that though there is no evidence on record with regard to comparable sales, the Reference Court, erroneously relying on Ex.A-1, fixed the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre.

¶12

7. During the trial, in order to substantiate the claim of the Claimants, the 1^st claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined three other independent

¶13

witnesses as PWs.2 to 4, and marked the certified copy of registered sale deed and the copies of agreements of sale as Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the appellant - respondent, one R. Hari Singh, the then Land Acquisition Officer, was examined as RW.1 and copy of the award was marked as Ex.B-1.

¶14

8. It is true that the Reference Court relied on Ex.A1, registered sale deed, dated 18-10-1993, which is a subsequent document to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, but, keeping in view the other oral evidence on record, it is clear that the acquired land is situated on both sides of the road and adjacent to the village of Pedda Devulapalli, which is a major Gram Panchayat. The said village is not only a business centre, but also having other amenities, like High-School, Primary Health Centre, Civil Hospital, Veterinary Hospital including phone with STD facility. It is also clear from the oral evidence that a Chemical factory called Globe Organics Factory, where 400 to 500 employees were working, is situated nearby the acquired land.

¶15

9. Though Ex.A-1 cannot be relied upon, but for the purpose of guess-work, it can be looked into, as per which it is clear that an extent of 277 square yards covered by Survey No.28, was sold for an amount of Rs.5,700/-, which works out to Rs.99,596/- per acre. The Reference Court, having made sufficient deductions, has fixed the

¶16

compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. We are in agreement with the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that the documents subsequent to the notification cannot be taken as basis for the purpose of determination of market value, but if

¶17

Ex.A-1 is taken as correct coupled with the other oral evidence on record, it is clear that the land under acquisition is near to the village and is having all the aforesaid amenities.

¶18

10. Having regard to the aforesaid oral evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the acquired land is suitable for construction of houses, as the same is located near to the village. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.40,000/- per acre is unreasonable and, accordingly, we do not find any ground which warrants interference with the findings of the Reference Court.

¶19

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal Suit is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, stand closed.

¶20

_________________________ R. SUBHASH

¶21

REDDY, J

¶22

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶23

January 30, 2014. Mgr

The Land Acquisition Officer/ v. Vanam Venkatrama Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Officer/ v. Vanam Venkatrama Prasad

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

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

Tahsildar (L.a.O.)/ Vs Dhulipala Kamalamma

P.Venkatramaiah and 4 Ors. Vs L.A.O. Krishna and Anr.

Spl.Dy.Col. L.A. Hyd Vs Barthelomeaandvincinza Educ.Soci Sec/Bad