Dismissed

Arisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu v. Sub-Collector

Telangana HC14 Nov 2014LAAS/241/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant challenged the reference court's enhancement of compensation from Rs.35,000 to Rs.53,000 per acre. The Court held the appeal devoid of merits, finding the reference court's reliance on a later, lower-value sale transaction justified given the huge variation in data.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed; no order as to costs.

Arisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu Vs Sub-Collector — 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.241 of 2006

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 9.7.2002 in O.P.No.40 of 1998 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, enhancing the market value for the subject land from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.53,000/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits.

¶5

2 . An extent of Ac.0.78 ½ cents of land, out of total extent of Acs.33.21 cents, in R.S.No.360/1C 1A, situated at Kondapally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, belonging to the appellant/claimant was acquired for the purpose of Budameru Diversion Channel. A draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) was published on 24.3.1992 and possession of the land was taken on 7.1.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has passed Award No.5/93, dated 11.1.1993, fixing market value for the subject land at Rs.35,000/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits.

¶6

3. Not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant/claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.40 of 1998 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

¶7

Vijayawada.

¶8

4. Before the reference Court, to substantiate his claim for a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, on behalf of the appellant/claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Apart from the same, Ex.X.1. copy of registered sale deed was also filed. The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has passed the impugned order dated 9.7.2002, fixing market value for the subject land at Rs.53,000/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant, seeking further enhancement of compensation.

¶9

5 . It is contended by Sri B. Somasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the acquired land is a valuable land situated in a developed urban area of Vijayawada town and the market value of the land would be not less than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. It is contended that though under Ex.A.2, certified copy of sale deed dated 18.4.1989, an extent of Ac.0.60 cents of land in the very same survey number was sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/- per acre, the reference Court discarded such sale transaction without assigning any valid reason.

¶10

6. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that there are several sale transactions pertaining to the very same survey number, which reflect the lower price of land in the vicinity. It is submitted that in the sale deed under item No.3/90, the land in

¶11

the very same R.S.No.360 was sold for a consideration of Rs.28,125/-. In view of the huge variation in the value of the lands, the Land Acquisition Officer himself has considered the matter, in detail, and fixed market value for the land at Rs.35,000/- per acre, however, the reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.53,000/- per acre without there being any evidence on record.

¶12

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material on record. 8. It is to be noticed that for the purpose of claiming higher market value for the subject land, apart from the oral evidence, the only relevant document filed by appellant/claimant is Ex.A.2, under which, an extent of Ac.0.60 cents of land in the very same survey number was sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/- per acre on 18.4.1989 i.e., about 3 years prior to the date of Notification issued on 24.3.1992 for acquisition of the subject land. It is also evident from the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the sale data collected under item No.3/90 relating to the sale deed dated 9.5.1990, under which, an extent of Acs.2.00 of land in the very same R.S.No.360/1C1 was sold for a consideration of Rs.28,125/-, is closer to the date of Notification issued on 24.3.1992 for acquisition of the subject land. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that except the appellant/claimant, who is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.78 ½ cents, out of the total extent of Acs.33.21 cents of land acquired, the other claimants have not filed any appeals before this Court.

¶13

9. It is to be noticed that, normally, the sale transaction

¶14

reflecting higher market value is to be considered. But, at the same time, when there is a huge variation in the value of the lands reflected in the sale transactions, the sale transaction, which is closer to the date of Notification issued for acquisition of the subject land, is to be considered and there is no reason in discarding such sale transaction, while fixing market value for the acquired land. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the reference Court for discarding the evidence under Ex.A.2 and fixing market value for the subject land at Rs.53,000/- per acre, are just and in conformity with the evidence on record.

¶15

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶16

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶17

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 14.11.2014. Msr

¶18

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

¶19

L.A.A.S.No.241 of 2006

¶20

14.11.2014 Msr

Arisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu v. Sub-Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu v. Sub-Collector

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

The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Vs R. Subbaiah

Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Vs Kola Bhramaramba

The LAo and Spl Tahasildar(La) Vs N.Radhakrishna Murthy

The Land Acqusition Officer, Vs G. Bala Komuraiah

Kesavlal Vs Lao Cum Spl. Tahsildar (La)

The Special Deputy Collector Vs a.Kanakamma