THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
L.A.A.S.No. 5 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi)
This appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet
(hereinafter referred to as "the reference Court") in L.A.O.P.No.48 of
2012, dated 19.03.2013. By the impugned order, the reference Court
has awarded the market value for the houses/structures of the
claimants one time more (1+1) than what was awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer in Award No.03/2012 dated 14.02.2012.
2. The houses and structures of the claimants situated at
Ankepally, H/o. Anugonda Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar
District, were acquired by the Government for Priyadarshini Joorala
Project, by issuing draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on 30.01.2010. After due
enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on
14.02.2012
fixing compensation for houses, structures and open places on the basis of prevailing rates as on the date of notification relying upon the valuation fixed by the requisition authority, Irrigation Department. The claimants having received the compensation under protest, sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the 2 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_5_2016 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. By the impugned order, the reference Court has enhanced the market value one time more (1+1) than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimants preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri D.Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals. Perused the material available on record.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that even under the Government Orders i.e., G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 15.10.1993, marked as Ex.A6, the Government has passed orders granting compensation 1+2 times for the houses/structures acquired in respect of Srisailam Project. It is submitted that inasmuch as the present acquisition of the houses/structures of the claimants also for the purpose of irrigation project i.e., Priyadarshini Joorala Project, Ex.A6 is equally applies to the case of the claimants and therefore, the learned counsel seeks to enhance the market value of the compensation 1+2 times than what was awarded by the L.A.O.
5. The Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals would submit that the G.O. covered by Ex.A6 was issued in respect of Srisailam project and whereas the present acquisition pertains to Priyadarshini 3 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_5_2016 Joorala Project, for which no specific G.O. was issued by the Government and therefore, Ex.A6 cannot be taken into consideration. He further submits that as seen from Ex.A1, the reference Court, in respect of earlier acquisition in O.P.No.611 of 1999, has enhanced the market value by one time more than the value fixed by the L.A.O. As seen from Ex.A2, this Court in A.S.No.3375 of 2000 has confirmed the market value fixed in Ex.A1. Even the Apex Court, as seen from Ex.A3, has dismissed the appeal confirming the fixation of the said market value by the reference Court. Therefore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals, relying on Ex.A3, submits that the market value fixed by the reference Court is based on evidence and needs no interference by this Court.
6. A perusal of the record discloses that in respect of the earlier acquisition proceedings pertaining to Gaddampally H/o. Anugonda Village, the reference Court has passed orders in O.P.No.29 of 2004 and Batch, dated 23.01.2006 enhancing the market value by one time more than the value fixed by the L.A.O. The said order was marked as Ex.A10. Inasmuch as the present acquisition proceedings relates to the adjacent village covered by Ex.A10, the reference Court relying on Ex.A10 has fixed the market value by one time more than the value fixed by the L.A.O. The record further discloses that the Government has issued orders on 15.10.1993, which was marked as Ex.A6, 4 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_5_2016 ordering for enhancement of compensation two times more (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O., in respect of the acquisition of structures that were acquired for the purpose of Srisailam Project. Although the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that this project is entirely different one and the said G.O. covered by Ex.A6 which was issued for Srisailam project cannot be applied in the absence of any specific G.O. issued for the present project, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that the present acquisition proceedings also pertains to Irrigation purpose. Even the other contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that under Ex.A3, the Apex Court has confirmed the earlier fixation of market value by reference Court by one more time (1+1) than the one fixed by the L.A.O. and therefore, the present enhancement made by the reference Court which is in tune with Ex.A3 cannot be disturbed is also unsustainable for the reason that Ex.A6 issued by the Government granting 1+2 has not been brought to the notice of the Apex Court.
7. It is relevant to refer clause (ii) of Ex.A6, which specifies that "the market value of the structures including well which has been treated as structure by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award; and house sites shall be fixed at three times the value (1+2) determined by the Land Acquisition Officers." Even though Ex.A6 pertains to the acquisition 5 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_5_2016 proceedings in respect of Srisailam Project, the benefit thereof cannot be denied to the present appellants on the mere ground that the present proceedings pertaining to a different project. After all, both the acquisition proceedings are for the purpose of irrigation projects. Therefore, basing on Ex.A6, this Court is inclined to enhance the market value by two more times than the value fixed by the L.A.O.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the market value by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O. with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI ________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 15.09.2022 gkv/tsr 6 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_5_2016