Dismissed

The Mandal Revenue Officer v. M. Sampath Rao

Telangana HC7 Mar 2019LAAS/708/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition dispute, the appellant challenged an order by the Reference Court enhancing compensation from Rs.7,000 to Rs.14,000 per acre. The High Court held the enhancement was reasonable based on oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the order dated 24.09.1996 by the Subordinate Judge confirming enhanced compensation at Rs.14,000 per acre is confirmed.

The Mandal Revenue Officer Vs M. Sampath Rao — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶2

L.A.A.S.No.708 OF 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud)

¶4

The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 24.09.1996, in O.P.No.53 of 1992, passed by the Subordinate Judge at Nalgonda, whereby, the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the respondents-land losers from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.14,000/- per acre for the land located in Thanedarpally, H/o. Indurthy village.

¶5

Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 23.01.1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), the Government had proposed to acquire an extent of Acs.3-75 guntas of land belonging to the respondents, situated in Thanedarpally, H/o. Indurthy village of Marriguda Mandal in Nalgonda District, for the purpose of providing house site pattas to the weaker sections of Thanedarpally, H/o. Indurthy village. While determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) relied upon a total of forty one sale documents prevailed in that area immediately preceding three years from the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification. After following the procedure under the Act, the LAO passed the award on 20.03.1992 granting a compensation of Rs.7,000/- per acre.

¶6

Since the land losers, the respondents, were aggrieved by the award dated 20.03.1992, they approached the Reference Court for

¶7

RSC,J & TA,J Laas_708_2006

¶8

¶9

enhancing the compensation. According to them, they were entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.25,000/- per acre. In order to buttress their claim, they examined four witnesses, and submitted two documents. After going through the evidence produced by both the parties, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

¶10

The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the learned Reference Court has ignored the fact that the LAO has fixed the compensation basing on the documents prevailed in that area immediately preceding three years from the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification and enhanced the compensation. He further contended that the even though no specific evidence was placed before the Reference Court for fixing the compensation amount at Rs.14,000/-, it has granted the same on its own. Thus, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind.

¶11

None appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order, and examined the record.

¶13

Though no specific evidence was placed before the Reference Court for fixing the compensation amount at Rs.14,000/- per acre, it has fixed the compensation basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. Since agricultural land is an essential

¶14

RSC,J & TA,J Laas_708_2006

¶15

¶16

asset for a farmer, the grant of compensation of Rs.14,000/- per acre is most reasonable. In the circumstances, it can be said that the order of the Reference Court fixing compensation at Rs.14,000/- per acre appears to be just and reasonable.

¶17

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. The order dated 24.09.1996, in O.P.No53 of 1992, passed by the Subordinate Judge at Nalgonda, is, hereby, confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions,

¶19

if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶20

____________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J

T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
Date: 07.03.2019
TJMR

The Mandal Revenue Officer v. M. Sampath Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Mandal Revenue Officer v. M. Sampath Rao

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

Thupakula Anjaneyulu , Anji, Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P

Sistla Sudhir , Sudhir S.S. Cyberabad., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

A Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Nation Research Centre on Meat through Director

Ayesha asma Vs Sk. Hussain Bin Abdul Khader Al Amodi

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd.,Hyd Vs Smt. Kuncham, R.R.Dist and Six Others

Sk. Hussain Bin Abdul Khader Al Amodi Vs Ayesha Asma