Partly allowed

T. Hanmanth Reddy v. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC10 Nov 2014LAAS/1053/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the court enhanced compensation for acquired agricultural land from Rs. 6,100 to Rs. 10,000 per acre based on income evidence and comparable awards, allowing statutory benefits and interest from a specific date.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 10,000 per acre; entitlement to statutory benefits under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984; interest on solatium from 19.09.2001.

T. Hanmanth Reddy Vs The Land Acquisition Officer/ Mandal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

L.A.A.S.No.1053 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT : (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01.2001, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in O.P.No.35 of 1996.

¶5

Land to an extent of Ac.4-55 cents in Sy.No.189/1, situated at Janganreddipally, hamlet of Amrabad village in Mahabubnagar District was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on 21.01.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary inquiry, has passed the Award, fixing compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the representation of claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the matter was referred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool and numbered as O.P.No.35 of 1996.

¶6

Before the reference Court, Claimant No.1 was

¶7

examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of referring officer, but the copy of the Award was marked as Ex.B-1.

¶8

The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6,100/- per acre. Seeking fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre, this appeal is filed by the claimants.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for appellants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that the acquired land of claimants is abutting the village and that it is red soil land which was being used for raising commercial crops like chilly, groundnut, cotton, castor etc., and the claimants used to get a net annual income of Rs.6,000/- per acre out of the said land. It is further submitted that earlier, with regard to acquisition of land from the same village, when the matter was referred to the Court, the reference Court, under Ex.A-1/order dated 13.09.1989 in O.P.No.36 of 1988 and Ex.A-2/order dated 06.09.1989 in O.P.No.31 of 1987, has fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.12,000/- per acre respectively. It is also stated that Jangamreddipally is a developed area, which is having a Post office and High School. Accordingly, they claim for fixation of compensation at the

¶11

rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre for the acquired land.

¶12

On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that in the absence of any comparable sales filed on behalf of claimants, they are not entitled for any enhancement in compensation. It is submitted that the lands covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2 are more fertile lands than the present acquired lands, and further, those lands are located in a more developed area, as such, the same cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing market value for the present lands.

¶13

At the outset, it is to be noticed that the lands acquired are in an agency area, where there is prohibition on transfers. It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that in view of such prohibition, there was no transfer of agricultural lands, as such, the claimants could not get any evidence by way of registered sale deeds to prove the market value of present lands. One of the claimants, who was examined as PW-1, in clear terns, has stated that the lands acquired are adjoining the village and are fertile lands, which were being used for raising commercial crops like groundnut, chilly etc., and they used to get an annual income of Rs.6,000/- per acre. In the absence of any documentary evidence, having regard to the oral evidence on record, it is clear that the present acquired lands are near to the village site and were being used for raising commercial crops like chilly, groundnut etc. If not Rs.6,000/- per acre as claimed by the

¶14

claimants, even if the net income of Rs.1,000/- per acre is taken and capitalisation method is adopted by applying the standard multiplier of 10, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre. This also gains support from the documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 and A-2, wherein, compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.12,000/- per acre respectively, for the lands acquired from the same village. Having regard to the oral evidence on record, considering the fertility of lands acquired and their location near to the village, and further, taking clue from Exs.A-1 and A-2, we are of the view that the market rate for the acquired lands can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per acre.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal in part and fix the market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. It is needless to observe that the appellant/claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits as per the provisions of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984). The appellants are also entitled to interest on solatium only from 19.09.2001 onwards, on which date, the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India^[1] was pronounced.

¶16

Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶19

__________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J 10^th November 2014

¶20

ajr

¶21

[1] (2001) 7 SCC 211

T. Hanmanth Reddy v. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Hanmanth Reddy v. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Mandal Revenue Officer

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

Mandava Mohana Nagalakshmi, Vs Lingeneni Bharat Bhusan

LAo and Spl. Dy. Collector Vs P. Lakshmi Kantham

Lao and Spl. Dy. Collector, Vs P. Viswanadham

The Spl. Dy. Collector (Lao) Vs Varada Subramanyam

Bharat Biotech International Limited Vs Rites Limited

R. Ksrishnadf Reddy Vs The Land Acquisition Offaicer / Mro