Dismissed

Mulakala Bapineedu v. Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014LAAS/871/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals challenging enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act were dismissed. The court held that sale deeds used by appellants to claim higher rates were executed after the acquisition notification, rendering them inadmissible for reference purposes.

What did the court decide?

Land Acquisition Appeal Suits dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

Mulakala Bapineedu Vs Land Acquisition Officer and… — 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.Nos.1613 OF 2005 AND 49 & 871 OF 2006

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

These appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are filed aggrieved by the common order, dated 23.04.2004, passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.32, 30 and 102 of 1999 respectively, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

¶5

Various extents of lands situated at Kota Village belonging to the appellants – claimants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of improvement of Teki Diversion Drain. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 09.11.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has passed an Award on 19.08.1994, fixing the compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the appellants – claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which were tried in L.A.O.P.Nos.32, 30 and 102 of 1999 respectively, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

¶6

Before the reference Court, on behalf of the appellants – claimants, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and

¶7

Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

¶8

The reference Court, by recording a finding that the appellants – claimants failed to prove that the market value at the relevant point of time was higher than Rs.60,000/- per acre for the lands in question, has dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the appellants – claimants.

¶9

In these appeals, it is submitted by Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for appellants, that the total land acquired was Ac.16-71 cents and when some of the land owners approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions, this Court directed to consider their request for allotment of alternative land. It is further submitted that in compliance of such directions, the respondent purchased lands under Exs.A1 to A3 at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and as such, the appellants are also entitled to the same amount. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the tentative report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamarru, in which the market value of the lands in question was indicated as more than Rs.99,000/- per acre.

¶10

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Land Acquisition Officer after collecting sale data of the lands in the vicinity has fixed the compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre for the

¶11

lands in question. He further submitted that in spite of giving opportunity, no evidence was adduced by the appellants – claimants to prove that the market value of the lands in question at the relevant point of time was higher than Rs.60,000/- per acre. It is further submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer has given the tentative report basing on the report of the Executive Engineer and the same is not binding on the Land Acquisition Officer, as the said report is not based on registered sale deeds, and basing on the same, the appellants – claimants cannot seek for enhancement of compensation.

¶12

In these appeals, it is to be noticed that the 4(1) notification was issued on 09.11.1993 and Exs.A1 to A3 – sale deeds marked on behalf of the appellants were executed in the year 1994. Even if it is true that the lands covered under Exs.A1 to A3 were purchased at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in favour of some other claimants, such purchases were made in compliance of the directions issued by this Court and the same cannot be taken as a basis for the purpose of determining the compensation for the lands in question. It is also to be noticed that Exs.A1 to A3 were executed subsequent to the issuance of the present 4 (1) notification and hence, it is not safe to rely on such documents for the purpose of fixing the compensation. The burden is on the appellants – claimants to prove that at the time of issuance of present 4 (1) notification the market value of the lands in question

¶13

is higher than Rs.60,000/- per acre, by relying on sale deeds which are executed prior to the issuance of 4 (1) notification, dated 09.11.1993. Even with regard to the tentative report given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the same is based on the report stated to have been sent by the Executive Engineer, in which the market value was roughly indicated. In the absence of any other documentary evidence on record showing higher market value than Rs.60,000/- per acre, solely by relying on the tentative report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and on the deposition of the interested claimants, the appellants – claimants cannot seek for enhancement of compensation than the one fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the reference Court.

¶14

Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suits are dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶15

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶16

_________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶17

09^th June, 2014 MD

Mulakala Bapineedu v. Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulakala Bapineedu v. Land Acquisition Officer and 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 State Vs B. Ramesh

B.S.Pavan Kumar Vs Smt. B.S.Swapna

T.Dhan Gopal Rao Vs Smt. T.Prabhavathi

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vs M. Sreenivasa Reddy

R.D.O.(L.a.O.) Kurnool Vs S.Siddappa

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs G. Venkata Ramana Reddy