The Special Dy.Collector, vs A.Venkatrajam,Died Per Lr R13
2022 Latest Caselaw 362 Tel

    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                      AND
         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

              Appeal Suit No. 2894 of 2004


JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Laxman)

    Assailing the Order and Decree dated 29.12.2003 in

O.P.No.90 of 1997 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at

Peddapalli, where under the compensation awarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.13,000/-

per acre to Rs.24,000/- per acre, the State preferred this

present appeal.


     The brief facts leading to filing of present Appeal are

that the lands to an extent of Acs.3.02 guntas, situated at

Chinnabonkur village of Sulthanabad Mandal was acquired

for laying of new Broad Guage Railway Line and draft

notification was issued on 11.09.1995 and Award was

passed   on   14.06.1996    fixing   the   market   value   of

Rs.13,000/- per acre along with other consequential

benefits under Land Acquisition Act. The claimants claimed

Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the fixation of market

value, they sought reference.


     Before the Reference Court, they have examined P.W.1

and P.W.2. P.W.1 is the claimant and P.W.2 is the vendor

of Ex.A1 document, where under land to an extent of 240
                                2




sq.yds was sold for sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-. The

said sale transaction was dated 04.07.1994.


     The respondent examined R.W.1 justifying the fixation

of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer. The

Reference Court, after considering the evidence of the

claimants as well as Land Acquisition Officer, enhanced the

market value of the land from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.36,000/-

per acre. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is filed.

Learned Government Pleader for Appeals as well as

Standing Counsel representing Railways have contended

that the Reference Court has erred in relying upon Ex.A1,

which is sale transaction relating to smaller extent and

whereas the land acquired in the present case is larger

extent, as such, reliance of Ex.A1 is uncalled for. According

to them, the compensation awarded is excess and the

fixation done by the Land Acquisition Officer is justified.

On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the

claimants has contended that even though Ex.A1 is relating

to the smaller extent, the same cannot be discarded, when

there is no evidence available to get the fixation of market

value of the land. According to him, even though the same

is smaller extent, the Reference Court has not completely

relied upon Ex.A1 to fix the compensation when the land

under Ex.A1 per acre comes to Rs.1,00,000/-, but the

Reference Court has only fixed Rs.36,000/- per acre

considering the yielding as well as potentiality of the land.

According to him, the compensation is justified.

The evidence of claimants shows that they were

growing commercial crops yielding annual income of

Rs.20,000/- per acre. According to them, the soil is good

for cultivation and the Reference Court found that there is

no rebuttal evidence with regard to claim made by the

claimants in this regard. The Reference Court fixed

Rs.36,000/- per acre not only basing on Ex.A1 sale

transaction, but also considered un-rebuttal evidence filed

by the claimants with regard to commercial crops which

they were growing and the income they were getting from

such cultivation. The evidence also shows that the land is

very close to the Revenue Headquarters and now it is

declared as District Head Quarters, which is also a good

potential in future.

There is no law that smaller extent cannot be relied

upon and that when the smaller extent of land is relied

upon in fixing the compensation for the larger extent, there

must be some deduction. If Ex.A1 is taken into

consideration, the land is Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, when

development percentage is given deduction, the market

value which is fixed by the Reference Court is less than

what actually the claimants are entitled. If Ex.A1 is placed

reliance, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

compensation of Rs.36,000/- per acre is just and

reasonable, which requires no interference.

In the result, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

________________

M.LAXMAN, J

Date: 01.02.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

Appeal Suit No. 2894 of 2004

Date: 01.02.2022

kvs