K.Chenappa vs The Land Acquisition Officer ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3059 Tel

           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

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

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

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

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

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