Appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer challenging the enhancement of compensation for land acquisition by the reference Court. The High Court upheld the award, finding the enhanced rates justified by evidence.
Appeal Suits dismissed; Miscellaneous Petitions closed; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
APPEAL SUIT Nos.973 AND 694 OF 2002
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
These appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), are filed aggrieved by the order, dated 24.11.1998, passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.53 and 54 of 1987 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. As common issues arise for consideration on similar set of facts, these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
The lands of the respondents – claimants admeasuring
Acs.3-20 cents in Survey Nos.339/3 and 339/4 of Chintalpudi Village, Guntur District, were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of providing house sites to eligible persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 01.09.1978 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on the same day. By invoking the provisions under Section 17 (4) of the Act, the Government has dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after
conducting due enquiry, passed award on 10.09.1986 fixing the compensation for the lands in question at Rs.21,000/- per acre and for the palmyrah trees at Rs.15/per tree. Not satisfied with the same, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which were tried in L.A.O.P.Nos.53 and 54 of 1987 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.
Before the reference Court, common evidence was recorded in both the cases. On behalf of the respondents, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, enhanced the compensation for the lands in question from Rs.21,000/per acre to Rs.35,000/- per acre and for palmyrah trees from Rs.15/- per tree to Rs.75/- per tree. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Having heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals, we have perused the material on record.
It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that Exs.A1 and A2 are post dated sales and basing on them, the market value for the lands in
question, as on the date of notification, cannot be determined. It is further submitted that without there being any legally acceptable evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation.
In this case, it is not in dispute that the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to eligible persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is to be noticed that to prove the market value of the lands in the same vicinity in 1983, Ex.A1 was filed, which reflects that the lands were being sold at Rs.80,000/- per acre during the year 1983 and PW.4, who is one of the vendors under Ex.A1, was examined to substantiate the same. At the same time, it is also to be noticed that immediately after the 4 (1) notification was issued, the Tahsildar, Ponnur, addressed a letter to the District Collector, Guntur, on 04.12.1978, wherein, in clear terms, he has stated that the market value for the lands in question was ranging from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.35,000/- per acre and the same was marked as Ex.B3. Further, it is to be noticed that the lands covered under Exs.A1 and A2, which are post dated sales, were sold at Rs.80,000/- per Square Yard. If Ex.B3 is taken into consideration coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, it can be said that there is increase in price for the lands. In the absence of producing any sale deed executed prior to the present notification to prove the market value, the reference Court has rightly relied on the
documentary evidence in Ex.B3, in which, the Tahsildar himself has mentioned that the market value for the lands in question was ranging from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.35,000/- per acre during the relevant point of time.
Insofar as the palmyrah trees are concerned, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tenali, estimated the value at Rs.75/- per tree. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for restricting the compensation at Rs.15/- per tree by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court has rightly relied on the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tenali, who has estimated the value of the palmyrah trees at Rs.75/- per tree.
Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that the reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation for the lands in question at Rs.35,000/- per acre and for the palmyrah trees at Rs.75/- per tree, and the same cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the reference Court.
Accordingly, the Appeal Suits are dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, in any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.
JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
JUSTICE A. SHANKAR
NARAYANA
7th February, 2014 MD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
APPEAL SUIT Nos.973 & 694 OF 2002
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)
7th February, 2014
MD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the reference Court erred in enhancing compensation based on post-dated sales and Tahsildar's report.
Whether the compensation for lands and palmyrah trees fixed by the reference Court was illegal or arbitrary.
Whether the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer should be allowed.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Land Acquisition Officer
Respondents – claimants
R. Subhash Reddy
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
