The Appellate Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Tahsildar challenging the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court upheld the Trial Court's valuation of Rs.30,000/- per acre, reasoning that a prior 1981 sale deed supported the enhanced market value.
The Appeal Suit is dismissed with no order as to 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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
APPEAL SUIT No.985 OF 2002
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) by the Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer), Prathipadu, aggrieved of the order, dated
16-04-2001, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, in L.A.O.P. No.210 of 1984.
2. The land, belonging to the respondent – claimant, admeasuring Acs.2-07 cents covered by Survey No.310/1A of Kopparru Village, Prathipadu Taluk, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor people. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 05-10-1981. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award, dated 26-11-1982, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, as the claimant sought for
reference, the matter was referred to the trial Court, under Section 18 of the Act, which has taken up the same in L.A.O.P. No.210 of 1984.
4. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the claimant, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1, certified copy of the sale deed dated 21-03-1981, and B-2, certified copy of the common order in
L.A.O.P. No.422 to 424 of 1985, were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.
5. The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, particularly, Ex.B-1, which is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 21-03-1981, under which an extent of Ac.1-51 cents was sold for Rs.45,000/-, enhanced the market value of the subject land to Rs.30,000/- per acre.
6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant, and Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent – claimant, and perused the material on record.
7. As much as the sale deed under Ex.B-1 is of 1981, which transaction is much prior to the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published on 0510-1981, and in view of the oral evidence on record, it cannot be said that the market value fixed by the trial Court at Rs.30,000/- per acre for the land acquired is illegal, arbitrary or excessive. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal stand disposed of.
___________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
January 30, 2014. PV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the market value fixed by the trial Court at Rs.30,000/- per acre is illegal, arbitrary or excessive given a prior sale deed in 1981.
Whether the appeal filed by the Tahsildar under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has merit.
Whether the compensation awarded was arbitrary or excessive.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer)
Claimant
R. Subhash Reddy
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
