Partly allowed

Special Deputy Collector v. K. Raji Reddy

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014LAAS/233/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Deputy Collector appealed the reference court's enhanced compensation. Court upheld reasonable compensation based on smaller adjacent sales but modified interest entitlement against pre-declaration period allowing 9% for one year post-notification then 15%.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; interest denied for period prior to declaration notice but awarded at 9% per annum for one year thereafter and 15% per annum subsequently.

Special Deputy Collector Vs K. Raji Reddy — 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.No.233 OF 2005

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 07.09.2004, passed in O.P.No.128 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

¶5

An extent of Ac.3-17 ½ guntas of land situated at Kolanur Village of Odela Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to the respondents – claimants was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of extension of road from Kolanur to Mulasala Villages. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.07.2001. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed an Award on 24.12.2002 fixing the compensation at Rs.35,000/- per acre uniformly for the dry land and wet land. Not satisfied with the same, the respondents – claimants having received the compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was tried in O.P.No.128 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

¶6

Before the reference Court, on behalf of the respondents – claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

¶7

and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

¶8

The reference Court, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre for dry land and to Rs.70,000/- per acre for wet land and awarded interest from the date of taking possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit.

¶9

In this appeal, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Ex.A1 relates to smaller extent of house site and the reference Court ought not to have taken into consideration the same as comparable sale for the purpose of fixing compensation for the acquired land admeasuring Ac.3-17 ½ guntas. It is further submitted that though the possession was taken on 15.06.1999, in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the

¶10

case of R.L.Jain (D) by LRs. V. DDA and others^[1] , the respondents are not entitled to interest and other statutory benefits for the period anterior to the issuance of 4 (1) notification on 19.07.2001.

¶11

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents – claimants that the reference Court has rightly relied on Ex.A1 – sale deed, dated 24.01.2000, which was proved by examining PW.2 and

¶12

hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the reference Court.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, we have perused the material available on record.

¶14

The land in question was acquired for extension of road from Kolanur to Mulasala Villages and the 4 (1) notification was issued on 19.07.2001. PW.1, in his deposition, has stated that the land in question is situated on the road side leading from Kolanur to Mulasala Villages and is suitable for house sites. He has further stated that Kolanur Village is a developed one and is having all civic amenities like High School, Railway Station, Bus Stand and is 2 KM away from the Mandal Head Quarters. PW.2, who is the vendee under Ex.A1 - sale deed, dated 24.01.2000, by which 484 Square Yards of land was sold at Rs.50/- per Square Yard, which works out to Rs.2,42,000/-

¶15

per acre, has deposed that the land covered under Ex.A1 is very adjacent to the land in question. When such is the case, it can be said that the reference Court has rightly relied on Ex.A1 for the purpose of fixing compensation for the land in question. Further, it is to be noticed that though the land covered under Ex.A1 relate to smaller extent, it is well settled that when there are no comparable sales with regard to larger extents of lands, the sales effected for

¶16

smaller extents of lands can be taken as comparable sales for the purpose of determining compensation, subject to certain deductions towards development. It is also to be noticed that under Ex.A1, the compensation works out to Rs.2,42,000/- per acre, but the reference Court has awarded only Rs.60,000/- per acre for dry land, by deducting 75% of the value reflected in Ex.A1, and Rs.70,000/- per acre for wet land, as it would fetch higher value than the dry land. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the compensation fixed by the reference Court is just and reasonable and is in accordance with the evidence on record.

¶17

So far as interest is concerned, though possession was taken prior to issuance of 4 (1) notification on 19.07.2001, in view of the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.L. Jain’s case (supra) and Tahera Khotoon and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and others^[2] , we are of the view that the respondents – claimants are not entitled to interest for the period prior to the issuance of 4 (1) notification, but they are entitled to interest at 9% for a period of one year from the date of issuance of 4 (1) notification and thereafter, at the rate of 15 % per annum.

¶18

Subject to the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed confirming the compensation fixed by the

¶19

reference Court. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶20

____________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶21

_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 16^th June, 2014 MD

¶22

[1] 2004 (4) ALD 25 (SC)

¶23

[2] 2014 (2) ALD 1 (SC)

Special Deputy Collector v. K. Raji Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Special Deputy Collector v. K. Raji Reddy

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

E.Lakshmaiah Vs the R.D.O.Cum L.a.O.Kurnool

Smt. Bhagavathula Satya Nirmala, Vs Bhagavathula Venkata Viswanadham

Land Acquisition Officer,Spl Dy Collector, L.A. Unit, Vs Bharathamma

Gaddam Satyanarayana Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Depty Collector

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

Kommi Pitchaiah Naidu Vs The Special Deputy Collector