Partly allowed

Thappeta Chinna Mastanaiah v. Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC3 Jun 2014LAAS/205/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two judges dismissed the appellants' complaints regarding the categorisation of land but allowed them to claim statutory benefits accruing from 30.04.1982 onwards despite the 1980 notification.

What did the court decide?

Categorisation of lands confirmed; appellants entitled to statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 from 30.04.1982.

Thappeta Chinna Mastanaiah Vs Land Acquisition Officer /… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

L.A.A.S.Nos.657 & 734 OF 2006; 113, 115, 489 & 771 OF 2007; 450 OF 2008; 61 & 205 OF 2009 AND 283 OF 2011

¶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 aggrieved by the common order, dated 14.02.2006, passed in O.P.Nos.57 of 1999 and 70, 57, 42, 67, 40, 68, 41, 69 and 58 of 2000 respectively, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

¶5

Total land admeasuring Acs.30-00 covered by Survey

¶6

Nos.461-B, 455-1A, 455-1B, 457-B, 457-C, 458 and 462-1 situated at Guntakal Village, Anantapur District, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of establishing Agricultural Market Yard at Guntakal. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 31.01.1980 and the possession was taken on 25.03.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed Award No.5/86 on 14.05.1986 by categorising the acquired land into two groups and by fixing the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre for

¶7

Group – I lands, which are abutting Gooty – Bellary Road, and at Rs.25,000/- per acre for Group – II lands, which are abutting

¶8

Group – I lands. Not satisfied with the same, the appellants – claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which were tried in O.P.Nos.57 of 1999 and 70, 57, 42, 67, 40, 68, 41, 69 and 58 of 2000 respectively, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

¶9

The reference Court, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,000/- per acre for the lands covered under O.P.Nos.57 of 1999 and 67 & 41 of 2000 by considering them as Group-I lands; Rs.37,000/- per acre for the lands covered under O.P.Nos.70, 42, 40 and 58 of 2000 by considering them as Group – II lands; and Rs.10/- per Square Yard for the lands covered under O.P.Nos.57, 68 and 69 of 2000 by considering them as small bits. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the present appeals are filed by the appellants – claimants.

¶10

In these appeals, Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for appellants, has made two submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that without there being any valid reason, the reference Court has categorised the lands in question

¶11

for the purpose of determining the compensation, and secondly, it is submitted that the reference Court has not awarded the statutory benefits in accordance with law.

¶12

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the reference Court has rightly categorised the lands in question for the purpose of determining the compensation inasmuch as the lands which are abutting the highway fetch higher rates than the lands which are not abutting the highway. At the same time, the learned Government Pleader has agreed that the statutory benefits awarded by the reference Court are not in conformity with law.

¶13

So far as categorisation of lands in question is concerned, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer himself has categorised the lands into two groups i.e., Group – I, which are abutting the road leading from Gooty – Bellary and Group – II, which are abutting Group-I lands, and awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- per acre and Rs.25,000/- per acre respectively. It is always permissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to categorise the lands for the purpose of determining the compensation as it is well settled that the lands abutting the highway fetch higher price than the lands which are far away from the highway, as has been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court

¶14

in the case of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure . Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy and others^[1] In that view of the matter, we are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for appellants that categorisation of the lands in question is illegal. Accordingly, we confirm the categorisation made by the Land Acquisition Officer for determining the compensation for the lands in question.

¶15

With regard to the statutory benefits, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for appellants. In this case, it is to be noticed that the 4 (1) notification was published on 31.01.1980 and the possession was taken on 25.03.1980. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants – claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits as per the provisions under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984) from 30.04.1982 onwards. Earlier to that period, interest and other benefits shall be paid as per the rates prevailing prior to the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.

¶16

Subject to the above, all the appeals are allowed in part. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶17

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶18

JUSTICE A.SHANKAR

¶19

NARAYANA

¶20

03^rd June, 2014 MD

¶21

[1] (2010) 15 SCC 412

Thappeta Chinna Mastanaiah v. Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thappeta Chinna Mastanaiah v. Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional 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

Special Tahsildar, Vs Kajee Meera

The Special Deputy Collector(La) Vs Perikela Nageswarudu

Special Tahsildar, L.A. Vs Madisa Appili

Sub-Collector Vs P. Seshagiri Rao

Revenue Divisional Officer/ Vs Ganga Reddy (Died)

Revenue Divisional Officer/ Vs T. Bhumanna