This is an appeal against the order of the Senior Civil Judge enhancing land acquisition compensation to Rs.80,000 per acre. The court upheld the uniform enhancement, relying on a comparable sale deed, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; Reference Court order dated 14.03.2008 affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
L.A.A.S.No.386 of 2008
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)
This Land Acquisition Appeal Suit, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Priyadarshini Joorala Project(PJP), Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 14.03.2008 in O.P.No.22 of 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, whereby compensation was uniformly enhanced to Rs.80,000/- per acre, from Rs.28,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.38,000/per acre for irrigated dry lands (I.D. lands), treating all the lands as I.D. lands, along with all other statutory benefits.
2. A total extent of Ac.0.38 gts of irrigated dry land and Ac.0.15 gts of dry land situated at Kondair Village, Itikyal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, belonging to the respondents/claimants was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Distributory canal of Priyadarshini Jurala 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 2.12.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed Award No.17/2000, dated
11.12.2002, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.38,000/- per acre for I.D. lands and Rs.28,000/- per acre for dry lands.
3. Being not satisfied with the same, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was tried in O.P.No.22 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
4. Before the Reference Court, the respondents/claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the referring officer, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, mainly relied on Ex.A.3, certified copy of registered sale deed dated 3.11.1999 under which the land belonging to the very same village was purchased for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- per acre on 3.11.1999 and accordingly fixed the compensation uniformly at Rs.80,000/- per acre by treating all the lands as I.D. lands. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal. 5. In this appeal, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that in the absence of any acceptable evidence on record, the reference Court has erroneously enhanced the compensation to Rs.80,000/- per acre for both dry and I.D. lands. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer at Rs.38,000/- per acre for I.D. lands and Rs.28,000/per acre for dry lands is just and reasonable and hence sought to set aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, Sri C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, submits that the subject lands are situated in Kondair village and the respondents/claimants used to raise commercial crops, like chillies, cotton, sunflower, castor, paddy, vegetables, water melon, etc., and get a net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre, as such, the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation and hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
8. In this appeal, it is to be noted that to prove the market value of the acquired lands, the respondents/claimants filed Exs.A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 is the sketch map of Kondair village and its abutting villages, Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 27.10.1999, Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 3.11.1999, Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, Ex.A.5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 28.2.1996 and Ex.A.6 is Award No.17/2000, dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court fixed the
compensation uniformly at Rs.80,000/- per acre for both the dry and I.D. lands based on Ex.A.3 and discarded the evidence under Ex.A.2 on the ground that the land sold under Ex.A.2 is a wet land. Under Ex.A.3 an extent of Ac.1.00 of dry land belonging to the same village was sold for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- per acre on 3.11.1999. Therefore, as the acquired land is an extent of Ac.0.38 gts of irrigated dry land (I.D. land) and Ac.0.15 gts of dry land situated at Kondair Village, the reference Court has rightly relied on Ex.A.3 by treating the same as comparable sale and fixed the compensation for the acquired lands uniformly at Rs.80,000/by treating both the lands as I.D. lands. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence on record that the subject lands are pertaining to Kondair Village, which is abutting NH-7 and the respondents/claimants used to raise commercial crops, like chillies, cotton, sunflower, castor, paddy, vegetables, water melon, etc., and get a net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Therefore, the reference Court has rightly relied on Ex.A.3 and enhanced the compensation for the subject lands uniformly at Rs.80,000/- per acre by treating all the lands as I.D. lands, which is just and reasonable.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and decree dated 14.03.2008 passed by the reference Court.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 10.06.2014. Msr
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA
L.A.A.S.No.386 of 2008
10.06.2014 Msr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation to Rs.80,000/- per acre uniformly for dry and irrigated dry lands.
Whether the accepted sale deed under Ex.A.3 constitutes a valid comparable sale despite differences in land classification.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector
Respondents/Claimants
R.Subhash Reddy
A.Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
