A. Jayamma vs The Spi. Deputy Collector L.A,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5557 Tel

                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

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

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,

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

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

GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_5_2016