HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
&
HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
LAAS NO.3 OF 2009
Date: 28.10.2021
Between:
K.Chennapa s/o. Venkatappa,
Aged about 50 years, r/o. Peddagudem village,
Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar district.
.....appellant/
Claim Petitioner
and
The Land Acquisition Officer and
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar district.
.....Respondent/
respondent The Court made the following:
PNR,J & PSS,J LAAS No.3 of 2009 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA L.A.A.S.NO.3 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for respondent.
2. According to the appellant, the Government acquired the land to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas of dry land in Sy.Nos.159/2 and Ac.1.00 gunta of dry land in Sy.No.160/2 of Peddagudem village belonging to him for public purpose i.e., for construction of check dam across local Nala. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award fixing the compensation @ Rs.5000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On reference, claim was registered as O.P.No.12 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy.
3. In support of the claim for enhancement of compensation, appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2612 of 1999 (marked as Ex.A1); certified copies of registration extracts of sale deeds dated 23.03.1989 and 26.04.1989, (respectively marked as Exs.A2 and A3), and certified copy of the order in O.P.No.5 of 1996 and batch, dated 24.08.2000 (marked as Ex.A4).
4. On considering the said documents, the Reference Court was not satisfied with the claim for enhancement of compensation, PNR,J & PSS,J LAAS No.3 of 2009 3 affirmed the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and rejected the Reference.
5. Learned counsel for appellant sought to contend that the Reference Court has not appreciated the fact that the agricultural land, wherever located has the same characteristics and, therefore, merely because the land covered by the documents in Exs.A2 and A3 and the decisions covered by A.S.No.2612 of 1999 and O.P.No.5 of 1996 and batch were at a far of place is not a ground to reject the claim for enhancement of compensation.
6. The claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation, based on these four exhibits, was considered by the Reference Court in detail.
7. As can be seen from paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the order under appeal, land in issue in A.S.No.2612 of 1999 was in Peddamandadi village of Peddamandadi Revenue Mandal, whereas the land in issue in this appeal is in Peddagudem village of Wanaparthy Mandal i.e., in two different villages of two different mandals. The Reference Court, therefore, observed that the decision to grant enhancement of compensation based on said judgment cannot come to the aid of the appellant. The lands covered by Exs.A2 and A3 are situated in Jagathpally village of Peddamandadi Mandal. The Reference Court noticed that Jagathpally village is at a distance of 6 KMs and, therefore, there cannot be a comparison of value of land in a village far away from the land of the appellant. Similarly, the land covered by Ex.A4 was in Sreenivasapur village of Wanaparthy Mandal and that land was away by 10 KMs from the land of the appellant. The Reference PNR,J & PSS,J LAAS No.3 of 2009 4 Court also noticed that the land was acquired for the purposes of Housing Colony.
8. The Court further noticed that as per Exs.B2 and B3, on land in Peddagudem village sale deeds were executed in the year 1991 disclosing the market value as Rs.4000/- per acre. Particularly Ex.B2 is the sale deed executed by the appellant in the same survey number disclosing the sale value as Rs.4,000/- per acre.
9. Having regard to these facts, the Reference Court found that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable and, therefore, declined the prayer to enhance the compensation.
10. Except contending that agricultural land in any village can be treated as one and the same for the purpose of determination of compensation, no material is placed before this Court to grant higher compensation.
11. The determination of compensation of agricultural land depends on various factors, including irrigation source, potentiality of the land, proximity to the National or State Highway, connectivity, and future prospects of the land for the purpose of real estate development. The documents relied by the appellant, as noticed by the Reference Court, the transactions on land on which reliance was placed are in far away villages, whereas documents relied by the Land Acquisition Officer clearly point out that near about the time of acquisition on land in the same survey PNR,J & PSS,J LAAS No.3 of 2009 5 number, the transaction disclosed the value of the land @ Rs.4,000/- per acre.
12. We therefore do not see any error in the view taken by the Reference Court. The Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ___________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Date: 28.10.2021 Kkm PNR,J & PSS,J LAAS No.3 of 2009 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA L.A.A.S.NO.3 OF 2009 Date: 28.10.2021 kkm