Dismissed

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

Telangana HC13 Jun 2014LAAS/506/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Land Acquisition Officer appealed the Senior Civil Judge's enhancement of compensation for land acquisition from Rs.40,000 per acre to Rs.62 per Square Yard. This single-judge bench upheld the award, finding it just and reasonable based on surrounding land values andPrice escalation provisions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; compensation award of Rs.62 per square yard confirmed.

Land Acquisition Officer,Spl Dy Collector, L.A. Unit, Vs… — 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.506 OF 2008

¶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 13.08.2008, passed in O.P.No.99 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

¶5

An extent of Ac.7-26 guntas of land situated at Atmakur Town, Mahaboobnagar District, belonging to the respondents – claimants was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of excavation of Distributory No.7 of Priyadarshini Jurala Project left main canal. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.05.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed an Award on 15.02.2003 fixing the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. 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.99 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

¶6

Before the reference Court, on behalf of the

¶7

respondents – claimants, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

¶8

The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.62/- per Square Yard. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶9

In this appeal, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that though large extent of land was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Distributory No.7, the reference Court has awarded the compensation on yard basis. It is further submitted that in the absence of any acceptable evidence on record, the reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.62/- per Square Yard.

¶10

On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents, that the land in question is situated in Atmakur Town, which is a Mandal Head Quarter having agricultural market committee. It is further submitted that having regard to the commercial importance of the Town and the potential value of the land in question to be used as house sites, the reference Court has fixed the compensation on yard basis. It is further submitted that when the lands covered

¶11

by Survey No.422 were acquired for the purpose of constructing Bus Station by issuing 4 (1) notification on 25.08.1977, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at Rs.5/- per Square Yard and the reference Court, has enhanced the same to Rs.40/- per Square Yard under Ex.A1. It is further submitted that when the lands covered by Survey Nos.277 and 276/A of Atmakur Town were acquired for the purpose of constructing Office of the Executive Engineer of Priyadarshini Jurala Project by issuing 4 (1) notification on 26.09.1981, the reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.20/- per Square Yard under Ex.A2, which was confirmed by this Court under Ex.A3, and to prove the same PW.2 was examined. It is further submitted that the land in question was notified on 08.05.2002, which is nearly 21 years subsequent to the issuance of notification covered under Exs.A2 and A3.

¶12

It is clear from the evidence on record that Atmakur is an important Town in Mahaboobnagar District and is also a Mandal Head Quarter where there is a notified agricultural market committee. It is to be noticed that earlier Atmakur was a Gram Panchayat and presently, it is a Municipality and residential sites and houses are spread over to the adjoining Villages, namely Erladinne, Nandimalla, Kistampally etc. It is also clear from Ex.B1 that Priyadarshini Jurala Project colony is situated

¶13

adjacent to the land in question. It is also clear from the evidence on record that when the lands covered under Ex.A1 were acquired by issuing 4 (1) notification on 25.08.1977, the reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.40/- per Square Yard. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the lands covered under Exs.A2 and A3 are near to the land in question for which the 4 (1) notification was issued on 26.09.1981 and the reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.20/- per Square Yard. It is also brought to our notice that when some portion of the land covered by Survey Nos.228/2 and 229/2 was acquired for the purpose of quarrying for forming embankment of Distributory No.7 from KM 0.725 to 0.925 by issuing 4 (1) notification on 03.03.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre and the reference Court has enhanced the same to Rs.58/- per Square Yard and this Court has confirmed the same in L.A.A.S.No.507 of 2008. The lands which were acquired for the purpose of quarrying were notified on 03.03.2000, whereas the present acquired land was notified on 08.05.2002 i.e., nearly after two years. The reference Court by taking into consideration the documentary evidence in Exs.A2 and A3 has fixed the compensation for the land in question at Rs.62/- per Square Yard by giving escalation of price at 10% per annum in view of the time gap between the

¶14

notification covered under Exs.A2 and A3 and the present notification. In view of the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.507 of 2008 and in view of the documentary evidence in Exs.A2 and A3, we are of the considered view that the compensation fixed by the reference Court at Rs.62/- per Square Yard for the land in question is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 13.08.2008, passed in O.P.No.99 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, in all respects. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶16

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶17

_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶18

13^th June, 2014 MD

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

B. Shanker Vs Smt Tara Bai , Sujata

P.Samuel Vs Smt. P.Padma , K.Padma

P.Naga Rathana Rao Vs P.Hema Bindu

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

Smt. Bhagavathula Satya Nirmala, Vs Bhagavathula Venkata Viswanadham

R.Do.-L.a.O. Kurnool Vs E.Lakshmaiah