The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... vs Chakali Kumuraiahdied Per Lr R35
2022 Latest Caselaw 4879 Tel

 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