Dismissed

The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Special Deputy v. R.Naganna

Telangana HC17 Jun 2014LAAS/158/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged the enhancement of land acquisition compensation from Rs.4,000 to Rs.20,100 per acre. The Court upheld the enhancement based on a 10% annual escalation for a 3-year-5-month gap from comparable acquisitions, dismissing the appeals as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals to be closed.

The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Special Deputy Vs… — 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.Nos.158 and 243 of 2007

¶3

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

¶4

These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Priyadarshini Jurala Project (P.J.P.), Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, aggrieved by the common order and decrees dated 24.10.2005 in O.P.Nos.630 and 485 of 1995 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, whereby compensation for the acquired lands was enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.20,100/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits.

¶5

2. An extent of Acs.2.31 gts in Sy.Nos.725/1/2, 726/3/2 and 736/3/2 of land belonging to the respondent/claimant in L.A.A.S.No.158 of 2007, and an extent of Ac.0.25 gts in Sy.No.724/3/2 of land belonging to the respondent/claimant in L.A.A.S.No.243 of 2007, both situated in the limits of Gadwal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, were acquired for the purpose of widening the K.L.L. main canal by issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) on 9.3.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed Award

¶6

No.18/1984, dated 10.8.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.4,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the respondents/claimants sought reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act and the same were tried together in O.P.Nos.630 and 485 of 1995 by the reference Court.

¶7

3. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Special Deputy Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 copy of the Award dated 10.8.1984 was marked. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, the reference Court through the impugned common order and decrees dated 24.10.2005 enhanced the compensation for the subject lands from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.20,100/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶8

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-State.

¶9

5. In these appeals, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that in the absence of any comparable sales, the reference Court ought not to have increased the compensation for the subject lands from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.20,100/- per acre.

¶10

6. It is to be noticed that to prove their case, the

¶11

respondents/claimants filed documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 and A.2. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that earlier the lands of one Chinna Hanmanth Reddy and others were acquired by fixing compensation of Rs.2,000/- per acre and on reference, the reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per acre under Ex.A.1, copy of the judgment in O.P.No.707 of 1994 and batch, dated 10.10.1990, and on appeal, this Court confirmed the orders of the reference Court under Ex.A.2, copy of judgment in A.S.No.597 of 1991 and batch, dated 28.9.1996. Further, P.W.2, who is one of the claimants in O.P.No.716 of 1984 and batch covered under Ex.A.1, in her evidence, categorically deposed that the lands acquired under Exs.A.1 and A.2 are similar in nature to the subject lands.

¶12

7. It is to be seen that for acquisition of lands under Ex.A.1, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 8.10.1980, whereas Notification for acquisition of the subject lands was issued on 9.3.1984. In view of the time gap between the two notifications i.e., three years five months, the reference Court gave escalation of 10% per annum and accordingly enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,100/- per acre. Therefore, we are of the view that the compensation fixed by the reference Court at Rs.20,100/- per acre for acquisition of the subject lands is just and reasonable.

¶13

8. For the aforesaid reasons, both these appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel,

¶14

miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶15

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶16

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 17.06.2014. Msr

¶17

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

¶18

L.A.A.S.Nos.158 and 243 of 2007

¶19

17.06.2014

¶20

Msr

The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Special Deputy v. R.Naganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Special Deputy v. R.Naganna

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

Gaddam Satyanarayana Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Depty Collector

Special Deputy Collector Vs K. Raji Reddy

A. Linga Reddy (died) per LRs Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and

S. Harshavardhan Rao, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer

Special Deputy Collector (L.a.) Vs Nandivargam Abdul Khader

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs D. Yellamma