Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer, (L.a.O.) v. Kathuri Nand Kumar

Telangana HC31 Jan 2014AS/986/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer challenged the compensation enhancement fixed by the reference court. The higher court upheld the enhanced rate of Rs.10,000 per acre, relying on sales data from an adjoining village. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed. No costs awarded.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, (L.a.O.) Vs Kathuri Nand… — 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 No.986 OF 2002

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal is filed, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the order, dated 15.12.2000, passed in O.P.No.134 of 1999, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

¶5

A total extent of Acs.155-34 guntas of land situated in different survey numbers of Chintalbori Village of Adilabad District was acquired on 18.04.1996, under the provisions of the Act for formation of Village tank. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in Adilabad District Gazette No.31/97-1 on 03.06.1997. Out of the total acquired land, respondent herein owns an extent of Acs.13-13 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer, who conducted enquiry, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre and passed an award on 05.03.1998. Not satisfied with the same, the respondent – claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.134 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. Before the reference Court, the said O.P. was decided along with other O.Ps.

¶6

On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, he himself was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 was marked.

¶7

The reference Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/per acre. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer).

¶8

Having heard the learned Government Pleader, we have perused the material available on record.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for appellant that though Ex.P1 – sale deed was registered after 4 (1) notification was issued and Ex.P2 – sale deed does not belong to the same Village, the reference Court, by considering them, has enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/per acre. It is further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer after collecting data of sales during the relevant point of time, has fixed the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre, which is just and reasonable, and the reference Court, without any basis, has enhanced the quantum of compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/-

¶10

per acre.

¶11

Ex.P1 – sale deed was registered on 29.08.1997, which was about three months after the date of 4 (1) notification, and the land covered under that sale deed was sold at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. The purchaser of the aforesaid land was examined as PW.2. Similarly, Ex.P2 – sale deed was registered on 16.12.1995, which was about nearly two years prior to the date of 4 (1) notification and the land covered under that sale deed was sold at Rs.25,000/- per acre. The attestor of Ex.P2 was examined as PW.3.

¶12

From the evidence of PW.1 – one of the claimants, it is clear that the land acquired was being used for cultivation of Cotton, Red Gram, Jowar etc., and that they used to get yield of 15 quintals of Cotton plus 3 quintals of Red Gram and 25 quintals of Jowar plus 3 quintals of Red Gram per acre every alternative year. Further, from Ex.P2, it is clear that the land in the adjoining Village i.e., Pardi – K to an extent of Ac.1-10 guntas was sold at Rs.25,000/per acre.

¶13

As it is clear that the Village Pardi – K is the adjoining Village to Chintalbori Village and as it is well settled that if there were no comparable sales in the same Village, sales in the adjoining Villages can be taken into

¶14

consideration, and as the lands are agricultural lands acquired for public purpose, in the absence of any other evidence, the sales effected in Pardi – K Village can also be considered as a guiding factor for the purpose of determining market value of the land acquired. The reference Court, by taking into consideration the overall evidence on record, apart from relying on Exs.P1 and P2, has enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Therefore, we are of the view that the market value fixed by the reference Court is neither illegal nor arbitrary, warranting interference by this Court.

¶15

The Appeal Suit is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶16

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶17

JUSTICE A. SHANKAR

¶18

NARAYANA

¶19

31^st January, 2014 MD

¶20

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

¶21

APPEAL SUIT No.986 OF 2002

¶22

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶23

31^st January, 2014

¶24

The Revenue Divisional Officer, (L.a.O.) v. Kathuri Nand Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer, (L.a.O.) v. Kathuri Nand Kumar

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

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

The Special Deputy Collector, Vs Mahaboob Ali

The La Officer, Vs M. Gocershan

Koroprolu Ganganna Vs Land Acquisition Officer and