THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
L.A.A.S.No.1103 of 2005
AND
I.A.No.2 of 2010 (Cross Objection (SR) No.4403 of 2010)
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud)
The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated
31.12.2003, in O.P.No.4 of 2001, passed by the Senior Civil Judge
at Peddapalli, whereby the learned Reference Court has enhanced
the compensation payable to the respondents-claimants from
Rs.12,000/- per acre to Rs.30,000/- per acre for dry lands, from Rs.21,000/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet lands, from Rs.42,222/- to Rs.50,000/- for the house of claimant No.23, from Rs.56,370/- to Rs.60,000/- for the house of claimant No.24.
The respondents-claimants filed Cross Objection (SR) No.4403 of 2010 seeking to enhance the compensation from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.72,000/- per acre for dry lands, Rs.50,000/- per acre to Rs.72,000/- per acre for wet lands; to enhance an amount of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- Rs.30,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the wells of claimant Nos.2, 5, 25, 27 and 30 respectively; and to enhance the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/- for the house of claimant No.23 and from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.85,000/- for the house of claimant No.24.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 08.10.1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), the Government had proposed to acquire RSC,J & TA,J 2 Laas_1103_2005 & Cross Obj. (Sr)_44032010 an extent of Acs.11-16 guntas of dry land and Acs.2-37¾ guntas of wet land, belonging to the respondents, situated in Gumpula village of Odela Mandal in Karimnagar District, for the purpose of formation of approach road to HIB across Manair River. While determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) relied upon 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 07.02.1997 granting a compensation of Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.21,000/- per acre for wet lands.
Since the land losers, the respondents, were aggrieved by the award dated 07.02.1997, they approached the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation. According to the respondents, they are entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre for dry and wet lands. They also sought to enhance the compensation for the houses and wells under acquisition as per the estimates prepared by the engineers. In order to buttress their claim, they relied on eight documents, Exs. A.1 to A.8, and got examined five witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5. 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.
The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the learned Reference Court has RSC,J & TA,J 3 Laas_1103_2005 & Cross Obj. (Sr)_44032010 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, it has enhanced the compensation on its own. Thus, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind.
Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the learned Reference Court did not take into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, which shows that the land under acquisition fetch Rs.72,000/- per acre. He further contended that though P.W.5, Civil Engineer, has filed estimations i.e., Exs.A.3 to A.8 showing the value of the wells, the learned Reference Court did not enhance the amount for the wells acquired. Hence, he sought to enhance the compensation as sought in the Cross Objections.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and examined the record.
A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Reference Court relied not only on Exs. A.1 to A.8 but most importantly, on the testimonies of Kankanala Sarojana Devi (P.W.1) and Bathini Jampaiah (P.W.2). In their testimonies, Kankanala Sarojana Devi (P.W.1) and Bathini Jampaiah (P.W.2) have clearly stated that they used to raise commercial crops like cotton, mirchi and vegetables in the acquired lands and used to get net income of RSC,J & TA,J 4 Laas_1103_2005 & Cross Obj. (Sr)_44032010 Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum. The said testimonies have not been shattered, either in the cross-examination, or by any rebuttal evidence produced by the appellant. Insofar as the enhancement sought by the claimants for the wells acquired is concerned, the learned Reference Court rejected the same on the ground that as the compensation was fixed after assessing all the potentialities, the enhancement of compensation for the wells cannot be granted.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enhance an amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre for dry lands as well as wet lands. Hence, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry lands and from Rs.50,000/- per acre to Rs.60,000/- per acre for wet lands. Except the said enhancement, the order of the learned Reference Court shall be intact.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed, as indicated above.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J _________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 15.03.2019 TJMR