Golla Kistanna Died By Lrs. Appellant ... vs The Lao., Reh., Ssp., Wanaparthy,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2595 Tel

Telangana High Court

Golla Kistanna Died By Lrs. Appellant ... vs The Lao., Reh., Ssp., Wanaparthy, on 27 February, 2025

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                           AND
        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                       L.A.A.S.No.396 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the appellants - claimants,

aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.12.2007 passed in

O.P.No.309 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at

Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the lands situated in

the limits of Manchalakatta Village of Kollapur Mandal were

acquired for formation of approach road from Kollapur to Somasila

Village. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was

published in the Gazette No.8-A, dated 28.02.1975. After following

the procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award

No.29/75, dated 15.11.1975 by granting compensation to the

acquired dry lands at Rs.2,250/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said

award, the claimants have filed a petition seeking enhancement to AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

an extent of Rs.15,000/- per acre and the same was referred under

Section 18 of the Act to the reference Court,

4. The reference Court has framed the following points for

consideration:

"1. Whether the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not reasonable and adequate?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate?

3. To what relief?"

5. On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and

Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was

examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has

enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per acre.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants

seeking further enhancement.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned

counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the

respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

reference Court has erred in passing the award and that the

acquired lands are fertile land with black cotton soil having

permanent irrigation facility and that the claimants used to earn AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

good income and that the lands under acquisition are similar in

nature to the land acquired under Ex.A1 and that the reference

Court has erred in not adopting the rates that are granted under

Ex.A1. He further argued that under Ex.A1, an amount of

Rs.7,000/- per acre was granted by the learned Judge but having

considered the said exhibit, the reference Court has restricted its

award only to Rs.4,000/- per acre for no reason and therefore,

prayed to set aside the award and enhance the compensation to

that of Rs.7,000/- per acre by allowing this appeal.

9. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has argued

that the purpose for which the land was acquired under Ex.A1 is

different from that of the present acquisition and that the reference

Court was right in granting Rs.4,000/- per acre, therefore, he

prayed to dismiss the appeal and uphold the order and decree of

the reference Court.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. to what relief?

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

11. POINT NO.1:

a) In the case on hand, the land that was acquired for the

purpose of approach road from Kollapur to Somasila Village, is at

Manchalakatta village of Kollapur Mandal.

b) The claimants relied upon Ex.A1 to prove that their lands

fetch more value than that is awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer. A perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that the land to an extent of

Ac.28-22 ½ guntas in several survey numbers was acquired by the

Government in the limits of Manchalakatta Village of Kollapur

Mandal, under submergence of the back water of Srisailam Hydro

Electric Project and in the said case, the Land Acquisition Officer

has passed the award by granting compensation of Rs.2,250/- per

acre for the lands under Category-I, Rs.1950/- per acre for

Category-II and Rs.550/- per acre for Category-III respectively.

Having not satisfied with the said award, reference was made to

the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool and in the said

reference vide O.P.Nos.282 of 1996 and 270 of 1996, the Senior

Civil Judge has passed an order dated 21.03.2006, wherein it has

granted compensation @ Rs.7,000/- per acre.

c) In the present case, the evidence of PW1 reveals that the

lands at Manchalakatta village were acquired earlier for the

purpose of Srisailam project and that aggrieved by the award, they AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

have approached the Court, wherein, the Court has enhanced the

amount to Rs.7,000/- per acre and that aggrieved by the said

award, the respondent has filed an appeal before the High Court

and the High Court has dismissed the said appeals confirming the

award passed by the reference Court. He has further stated that

the lands are situated on the left bank of river Krishna and have

fertile black cotton soils and that every year they raise commercial

crops like Tobacco, Cotton, Chilies and Groundnut, which fetch

good income. He further stated before the reference Court that the

award passed for the lands covered in O.P.No.282 of 1996 and in

the present case arise out of the same proceedings i.e. Award

No.29 of 1975 and that the acquired lands in the present

proceedings and the lands in O.P.No.282 of 1996 are similar in

fertility, yield and market value and that they fall adjacent to each

other.

d) PW2 is the claimant in O.P.No.282 of 1996, his evidence

reveals that his land was acquired for Srisailam Project and that

the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced by

the reference Court to Rs.7,000/- per acre for dry lands in survey

No.171 and 172 situated at Manchalakatta village and that the

respondent has not preferred any appeal in O.P.No.282 of 1996, as

such, the orders of the reference Court have become final. He also AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

stated that the lands under both the acquisition proceedings are

adjacent to each other and they pertain to award No.29 of 1975

dated 15.11.1975.

e) RW1 is the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit PJP, Gadwal.

The Land Acquisition Officer has relied on twenty three sale

instances from Manchalakatta village of Kollapur Mandal and has

rejected some sale instances on the ground that they are not

comparable sales and some are far away from the lands under

acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer has not ascertained the

actual market value of the lands in the vicinity and has not

supported his award with any acceptable and convincing evidence.

However, it is noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed

the award No.29 of 1975 dated 15.11.1975 covering the lands

under acquisition for the Srisailam Project and also the approach

road from Kollapur to Somasila Village and it is also elicited

through the evidence on record that both the villages fall adjacent

to each other and they have fertile black soils and has awarded

Rs.2,250/- per acre for dry lands in the present case. On

reference, the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool has enhanced

the value in O.P.No.282 of 1996 to the extent of Rs.7,000/- per

acre but in the present case i.e. in O.P.No.309 of 1996, the

reference Court has awarded only Rs.4000/- per acre, which is not AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

proper. When the lands are similar in fertility and the Land

Acquisition Officer has passed the award under the same

proceedings, the reference Court ought not to have passed a

differential amount, therefore, it is held that the compensation has

to be enhanced to the extent of Rs.7,000/- per acre in the present

case also. Though, the respondent counsel has argued that the

purpose for acquisition is different, it does not have any bearing on

the fact that the land acquired were of similar nature and also that

they were very close to each other. Considering the facts on

record, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled for

enhancement of compensation to Rs.7,000/- per acre. Point No.1

is answered accordingly.

12. POINT NO.2:

In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this

Court holds that the Reference Court's order and decree need

interference and therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled

for enhancement of compensation at Rs.7,000/- per acre.

13. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order and

decree dated 15.12.2007 passed in O.P.No.309 of 1996 by the

learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool are hereby set aside

and accordingly, the compensation awarded by the reference Court AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396_2009

is enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to that of Rs.7,000/- per acre. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

___________________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J Date: 27.02.2025 ns