Allowed

Vasireddy Pushpavathi, v. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Rdo

Telangana HC14 Sept 2022LAAS/263/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the market value of acquired land from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 6,000 per square yard, aligning it with a previous final award in the same acquisition. The claimant was awarded 15% additional interest for delayed notification. The Land Acquisition Officer's appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Market value enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 6,000 per sq. yard; 15% interest awarded for delay; earlier appeal by Land Acquisition Officer dismissed.

Vasireddy Pushpavathi, Vs The Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32E1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

L.A.A.S.Nos.263 of 201 5 and 87 of 2016

¶7

L.A.A.S.Nos.263 of 2015 and 87 ol 2O16

¶8

Appeals Under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2014 in L.A.O.P No.350 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge Court, Khammam.

¶9

l-.A.A.S.No. 263 ol 2015

¶10

Between:

¶11

Yagrg9{r^{Pushpavathi,Wo. Veerabhadra Rao,Age, 61 years,Occ:Retired} Judicial Employee, Rl/o. Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

L.A.A.S.No.87 of 2016

¶17

Between:

¶18

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam

¶19

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶20

AND

¶21

Vasireddy Pushpavathi, W/o. Veerabhadra Rao, Aged 58 years, Occ: Retired Judlcial Employee, R/o. Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

¶22

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶23

: i

¶24

LAASMP. NO: 181 OF 2016 in LAAS.No.87 of 2016

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant interim stay of all further^proceedings dated 0'1 .O9.2O14 made in LAOP No.350 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant in LAAS.No.26312015 and Respondent in LAAS.No.87 of 2016: SRI^{KADARU PRABHAKARRAO}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent in LAAS.No.263/2015 and Appellant in LAAS.No.87 of^{2016: GPFOR APPEALS}

¶28

The Court delivered the following:^{COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶31

AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI L.A.A.S.Nos. 263 of 2OL5 and 87 of 2Ot6

¶33

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridettil

¶34

Since the issue and the parties in both these appeals are common and the sarne are arising out of the very saine acquisition proceedings, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common^judgment.

¶35

L.A.A.S.No.263 of 2015 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of market value fixed by the Principal District Judge, Khammam (hereinafter referred to as "the reference Court") in L.A.O.P.No.350 of 2012 dated Ol.O9.2Ol4. Challenging the very same order, the L.A.O. preferred L.A.A.S.No.87 of 2016. By the impugned order, the learned reference Court has enhanced the market va,lue of the acquired land from Rs.40O/- to Rs. 1000/- per square yard.

¶36

Heard the learned Counsel for the claimant(s) and Sri D. Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶37

¶38

(iSD. J a.nd MGI', .l Laas 263 2015 and 87 20i6

¶39

Appeals al)pearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Oflicer. Perused the material available on record

¶40

Brief iacts of the case are that the land belonging to the claimant(s) to a:r extent of 498 square yards, covered by Sy.No.280 and 286, situated at Banl< Colony, Khanapuram Haveli r.r,as acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying bve pass road in Khammam Town by issuing notification under Section 4⁽¹⁾ of the^Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on 25.10.2006 followed by draft declaration, however,^possession of^the land was taken much prior to the issuance of the notification i.e., on 27.10.1986. After due enquiry,^the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 16.0l.2007 fixing the mar-ket value of the acquired land at Rs.4O0/- per square yard. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant(s) sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value. The reference Court duly ana)yzing the evidence adduced by both the

¶41

¶42

GSD, J and MGP,^J Laas 263 2015 and 87 2016

¶43

parties, has enhanced the market value from Rs.400/- to Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. Seeking further enhancement of compensation and challenging the said enhancement, the claimant(s) as well as the Land Acquisition Officer liled the present appeals.

¶44

The learned counsel for the claimant(s) has submitted that as per the sale transactions, which were marked as exhibits, it is evident that the market value of the land in the vicinity was being sold much more than the one hxed by the L.A.O. as well as the reference Court. It is further contended that for the very same purpose i.e., Iaying of bye-pass road in Khammam, in respect of the very same award, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred L.A.O.P.No.932 of 2OO8, wherein the reference Court by its order, dated 26.08.2013 has enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.4OO/- to Rs.6,000/- per square yard and the same has also become final. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant(s) submits that since the present land is also of similar nature and is also situated in

¶45

¶46

GSD, J and MGI,, J Laas 263 2C115 and 87 2016

¶47

the sarne area, the enhrlncement made in L.A.O.P.No.932 of 2008 strould also be made applicable to the present case

¶48

Although the learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that^tl-re enhancement made by the reference Court is^{cxccssive more particularly} in^the absence of any^{relevant sale transactions produced} by^the clarmant(s), however.^{hc did not dispute the factumof} enhancemellt of^compensation from^Rs.4O0/-to Rs.6,00Oi-^{per square} trard^made in^{L.A.O.P.No.932of} 2008 which^{pertains to the verv sarnepurposeand ver'r'} sarne awaid^proceedings

¶49

A copy of the order dated 26.08.2013 made in L.A.O.P.No.932 of^{2OOB on} the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, wouid reflect that 'with regard to the very sarne acquisition and very same award, on the reference sought by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court has enhanced the market value from Rs.4OOl- to Rs.6,O0O/. per squar-e yard. It a-lso reflects

I I

I ,

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas _263 -20 1 5 and 87 -20 I 6

¶54

that the land covered^{therein and the present land are} situated in the very^{same lane which were acquiredfor} laying of bye-pass road. The^{said order has alsobecome} final as no appeal seems to^{havebeenfiled by the L.A.O.} Such being the case, the^{claimant(s)cannot be deniedto} have the benefit of enhancement^{made in L.A.O.P.No.932} of 2008. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the market value of the acquired land from Rs.1,0O0/- to Rs.6,OO0/- per square yard.

¶55

Admittedly, the possession of the land was taken on 27.10.1986 and whereas the notification was issued on 25.10.2006. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in R.L,Jaln (D) bS LRs u, DDA and otherst and Tahera Khotoon and others u, Reaenue Dlalsional Officerz, the claimant(s) is/are entitled for additional interest at l5o/o from the date of taking over of actual possession till the date of publication of notification under Section a (1) of the Act.

¶56

' lzoo+;^{+ scc zl}

¶57

'lzor+;^{r: scc6 n}

¶58

¶59

GSD, J and M(il', J Laas_26i _2() I 5 and 87 20 t 6

¶60

In the result, L.A A.S.No.253 of 2O15 filed by the claimant is allowed enl-iancing the market^va-lue of the acquircd land lrom Rs.l,000i - to Rs.6,000/- per square yard The clajmant(s) is/ ale atso cntitled all^other statutory benelits as pcr the Act. Further,^{the claimant(s)} is/are entitled for additional interest at^{15% from the date} of takirrg over of actual^{possession i.e., frorn 27.10.1986till} the date of 1;ublication^ol notification^{underSection 4 (1) of} the Act t.e., 25.10.2006.^{'l'he clairnanls are directed to pay} the deficit court fee sil'rce^{their claim was only for} Rs.5,000/- per squ-are 1'arcl.^{Consequently,L'A.A.S No'87} of 2O16 filect by the^{L.A.O. stands dismissed.There shall be} no order as to costs.

¶61

Miscellaneous petitions, if^{any pending,shall stand}

¶62

closed

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR LJf

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal District Judge,^{Khammam. (with record)}

¶69

One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocate IOPUCJ 3. Two CCs to Gp forAppeals, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies gbr

: I I I i I I I

t II I I i I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410912022

T T .
i.<br>:,Q
:t
[ 1 Ui'{ N8
o !)
-s.
-}
* i, t:r pAlll

¶75

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶76

LAAS.Nos.263 of 2015 and^{87 ot 2016}

¶77

ALLOWING THE LAAS.No.263 of^{2015 AND} Df SMISSING THE LAAS.No.87 of 2016 WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

?p>3

¶79

132811

¶80

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶81

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI AND

¶84

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶85

L.A.A.S.Nos.263 of 2015 and 87 of 201 6

¶86

L.A.A.S.No.263 of 20'l 5

¶87

Between:

¶88

Vasireddy Pushpavathi, W/o. Veerabhadra Rao, Age, 61 years, Occ: Retired Judicial Employee, R/o. Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

¶89

...APPELLANT

¶90

AND

¶91

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam

¶92

...RESPONDENTS

¶93

L.A.A.S.No.87 of 2016

¶94

Between:

¶95

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam-

¶96

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶97

AND

¶98

Vagire{d1t Pushpavathi, Wo. Veerabhadra Rao, Aged 58 years, Occ: Retired Judicial Employee, RIo. Khanapuram Haveli, Khamham.

¶99

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶100

Appeals Under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 0'1 .09.2O14 in L.A.O.P No.350 ol 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge Court, Khammam.

¶101

These appeals^{comingon for hearing,upon perusingthe groundsof appeal,} judgment and decree of the^{Lowercourt and the material papers in the petitionand} upon hearing^{the argumentsof the Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocatefor the} Appellant^{in LAAS.No.263of 2015 and Respondentin LAAS.No.87of 2016 and GP} for Appeals,^{Advocate for the Respondent in LAAS.No.263of 2015 and Appellantin} LAAS.No.87^{of 2016.}

¶102

This Court^{doth Order and Common decreeas follows:}

¶103

That^the LAAS.No.263 of^{2015 filed by the claimant be and herebyis} allowed;

¶104

That^{the marketvalue of the acquired land be and herebyis enhanced from} Rs.1,000/-^{to Rs.6'000/- (Rupeessix thousand only) per square yard;}

¶105

3.ThattheClaimantbeandherebyisalsoentitledtoallotherStatutorybenefits as per the^Act;

¶106

4.Thattheclaimantisentitledtoadditionalinterestat,l5%fromthedateof taking over^{of actual possessioni e , from 27'1 0' 1 S86 till the date of} publication of notification^{under Section 4 (1) of theActi'e'' 25'10 2006;}

¶107

5.Thattheclaimantisdirectedtopaythedeficitcourtfeeastheirclaimwasonly for Rs.5,000/- Per^square Yard'

¶108

That the^{LAAS.No.87 of 2016 filed by the Land Acquisition Officerbe and} herebY is^{dismissed;and}

¶109

That there^{shall be no order as to costs in these Appeals'}

¶110

//TRUE COPY//

¶111

t':B'""'f H'54't+'-=^'J ( lty

¶112

SECTION OFFICER

¶113

To,

¶114

The Principal^District Judge,^Khammam. 2. Two CD Copies gbr

',.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410912022

COMMON DECREE

LAAS.Nos.263^{of 2015 and 87 of 2016}

¶120

ALLOWING THE^{LAAS.No.263of 2015 AND} DISMISSING THE LAAS.No.87 OT 2016 WITHOUT COSTS

¶121

7
)D23

Vasireddy Pushpavathi, v. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Rdo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasireddy Pushpavathi, v. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Rdo

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

E.V. Venu Gopal Vs The Special Deputy Collector

Ch. A.P. Suri Vs The Special Deputy Collector

The Authorized Signatory Vs Smt.Eppa Kalavathi and 4 Others

The Land Acquisition Officer - Cum Vs Vasireddy Pushpavathi

Oruganti Hymavathi Vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer

The Land Acquisinis Officer Vs Oruganti Hymavathi