Partly allowed

R. Ramakrishnaiah v. Special Dy. Collector (La)

Telangana HC22 Dec 2014LAAS/349/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals in part regarding land acquisition compensation for mulbery crops. While accepting arguments for deducting cultivation costs, the Court fixed market value at Rs. 1,20,000 per acre based on a net annual income of Rs. 20,000 multiplied by six. It denied separate compensation for land value.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for mulbery crop fixed at Rs. 1,20,000 per acre; no separate compensation for land value.

R. Ramakrishnaiah Vs Special Dy. Collector (La) — Corruption | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

L.A.A.S.Nos.349 of 2006 and 134 of 2007

¶3

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

¶4

Both these appeals arise out of the very same Notification dated 14.5.1984, as such, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶5

2. L.A.A.S.No.349 of 2006 is directed against the order and decree dated 30.06.1999 in O.P.No.176 of 1990 and L.A.A.S.No.134 of 2007 is directed against the order and decree dated 30.11.2006 in O.P.No.57 of 1999, both passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District.

¶6

3. Various extents of land, including an extent of Ac.1.44 cents, belonging to the appellant/claimant in L.A.A.S.No.349 of 2006, and an extent of Ac.1.48 cents, belonging to the appellants/claimants in L.A.A.S.No.134 of 2007, both situated at Banumukkala village, Atmakur Taluk, Kurnool District, was acquired for the purpose of excavation of link canal to Velgode Balancing Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. A draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act) was published in A.P. Gazette on 14.5.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has passed Award No.15/85, dated 20.5.1985, fixing compensation at Rs.7,600/- per acre treating the land as dry land and Rs.26,250/- per acre per annum towards the value of mulbery crop.

¶7

4. Not satisfied with the same, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which were tried in

¶8

O.P.Nos.176 of 1990 and 57 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

¶9

5. Before the reference Court, so far as O.P.No.176 of 1990 is concerned, on behalf of the appellant/claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Special Deputy Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 copy of Award dated 20.5.1985 was marked. The reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, confirmed the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.26,250/- per acre. So far as O.P.No.57 of 1999 is concerned, on behalf of the appellants/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1, copy of the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2004 in A.S.No.606 of 1999 was marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Special Deputy Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 copy of Award dated 20.5.1985 was marked. The reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.60,000/- per acre. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, both these appeals have been preferred.

¶10

6. It is contended by Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the subject matter of these appeals is covered by a judgment of this Court in A.S.No.3726 of 2000 and batch, dated 07.09.2009. It is submitted that arising out of the very same Notification dated 14.5.1984, when the lands along with mulbery crop in Banumukkala village ware acquired, by the aforesaid judgment, this Court adopted the annual income from mulbery crop at Rs.26,250/- per acre and by applying the multiplier ‘6’, fixed market value for the lands at Rs.1,57,500/-. It is further submitted that in these cases also, as it is proved that the mulbery crops

¶11

were of 2 years old by the time of acquisition of the lands, though the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation by applying the multiplier ‘6’, the reference Court has erroneously confirmed the compensation at Rs.26,250/- per acre in O.P.No.176 of 1990 for mulbery crop for one year only, and enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre in O.P.No.57 of 1999 for mulbery crop for four years only at Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum.

¶12

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that even as per the guidelines, cultivation expenses ranging from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- have to be deducted, besides other incidental expenses, and only net income is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing compensation. It is also submitted that in view of the claim made by the appellants/claimants for fixing market value basing on capitalization method, they are not entitled for separate compensation towards value of the land.

¶13

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the judgment in A.S.No.3726 of 2000 and batch, dated 07.09.2009, besides other material available on record.

¶14

9. Ex.A.4 is the letter dated 13.4.1988 issued by the Director of Sericulture, as per which, the total value of five pickings i.e., the gross income per year was Rs.26,250/-, but, at the same time, the cost of cultivation was mentioned as Rs.3,500/-. Apart from that, there will be incidental expenses of cultivation. From a reading of Exs.A.3 and A.4, we are of the view that only Rs.20,000/- can be taken as net income per annum from the mulbery crop. As the cultivation and other incidental expenses are not deducted in the aforesaid judgment, the appellants/claimants cannot claim the same compensation as

¶15

was awarded in the said judgment.

¶16

10. Further, it is clear from the evidence on record that the age of mulbery crop at the time of acquisition was two years. If the net annual income from the mulbery crop is taken at Rs.20,000/-, by applying the multiplier ‘6’, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre.

¶17

11. For the aforesaid reasons, both these appeals are allowed in part, fixing compensation for the mulbery crop at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. At the same time, we hold that the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any separate compensation towards value of the land. Needless to observe that the appellants/claimants are entitled for all the statutory benefits. No order as to costs.

¶18

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these appeals shall stand closed.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶20

__________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶21

22.12.2014. Msr

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶23

L.A.A.S.Nos.349 of 2006 and 134 of 2007

¶24

22.12.2014 Msr

R. Ramakrishnaiah v. Special Dy. Collector (La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Ramakrishnaiah v. Special Dy. Collector (La)

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

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs U. Janaki Ramulu

The Special Deputy Collector Vs G. Rajaiah

D.V. Krishnam Raju Vs The Land Acquistion officer, Rdo

A.Gopalakrishna Reddy Vs The Special Tahsildar

Rage Kasaiah (Died) per LRs a- 2 to 4 Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector (Lao)

Muthyam Prakash Rao Vs The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Collector)