Dismissed

The Land Acqusition Officer, v. G. Bala Komuraiah

Telangana HC14 Nov 2014LAAS/258/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer challenges the Reference Court's enhancement of market value to Rs. 12,000 per acre. The Court upheld the Reference Court's decision, accepting a 1982 sale transaction as valid evidence for compensation despite the 1984 acquisition notification, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Reference Court's fixation of market value at Rs. 12,000 per acre confirmed; Appeal dismissed.

The Land Acqusition Officer, Vs G. Bala Komuraiah — 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.258 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Shankar Narayana)

¶4

The instant appeal is preferred by the Government, through the Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Ghanpur, Warangal District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.09.1996 in O.P.No.165 of 1985 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the market value was enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per acre.

¶5

2. By publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) on 1.8.1984, the Government has acquired an extent of Acs.2.14 guntas in Sy.No.21/A and an extent of Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No.21/B, situated at Chinna Pendyal of Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District, for the purpose of providing house sites to Harijans. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, fixed market value for the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the request made by the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Act.

¶6

3. Before the reference Court, to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1, besides examining one Ch.L.N. Shesha

¶7

Sai as P.W.2, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, and Exs.A.2 to A.4 being certified copies of registered sale deeds dated 18.5.1982, 23.5.1985 and 27.5.1988, respectively. On behalf of the referring officer, Sri A. Rajeshwar Reddy was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2, which are proceedings and Award dated 25.7.1985, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶8

4. The reference Court, on appraisal of evidence adduced by the parties, discarded Exs.A.3 and A.4 on the ground that the sale transactions thereunder were subsequent to the date of Notification issued for acquisition of the subject land. The reference Court, relied on Ex.X.2 sale transaction, whereunder an extent of Acs.3.00 of land in Sy.No.111/B was sold at Rs.10,000/- per acre, believing to be a genuine transaction and enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.12,000/- per acre through the order and decree dated 24.9.1996.

¶9

5. It is that order and decree, which are challenged by the Land Acquisition Officer in the instant appeal, contending in the grounds of appeal that the reference Court ought to have confirmed the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, who has fixed the market value taking into consideration the sales statistics within three years just before the issue of Section 4(1) Notification and various relevant factors. It is also contended that Ex.A.2 is not proved in accordance with law and, therefore, the reference Court was not right in accepting and acting upon the sale transaction

¶10

covered by Ex.A.2.

¶11

6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer as well as Sri J. Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused the order under challenge and also the evidence on record both, oral and documentary, let in by the respective parties.

¶12

7. The reference Court has rightly rejected the sale transactions under Exs.A.3 and A.4, since the said sale transactions are subsequent to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 1.8.1984 for acquisition of the subject land. So far as Ex.A.2 sale transaction is concerned, we would like to observe that it has to be construed as an exemplar for the reason that the said sale deed was executed on 18.5.1982, which was more than 2 years prior to the date of Notification issued for acquisition of the subject land and the extent involved in the said transaction also was not a small bit and, in fact, huge extent of Acs.3.00 of land in Sy.No.111/B was sold at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. In such an event, no fault can be founded on the conclusions arrived at by the reference Court so far as the award of compensation relying on Ex.A.2. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere with the market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.12,000/- per acre.

¶13

8. We, therefore, confirm the fixation of market value at Rs.12,000/- per acre by the reference Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

¶14

9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶15

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶16

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 14.11.2014. Msr

¶17

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

¶18

L.A.A.S.No.258 of 2006

¶19

14.11.2014 Msr

The Land Acqusition Officer, v. G. Bala Komuraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Land Acqusition Officer, v. G. Bala Komuraiah

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

Arisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu Vs Sub-Collector

Kesavlal Vs Lao Cum Spl. Tahsildar (La)

The Special Deputy Collector Vs a.Kanakamma