Telangana High Court
AS/956/1999 of Narayana, Vs The Govt. of AP., on 29 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No. 956 of 1999 J U D G M E N T: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed This Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants, aggrieved by the judgment and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANARAO
A.S.No. 956 of 1999
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T:
Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed This Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants, aggrieved by thejudgment and decree dated 03.06.1996 passed inO.P.No. 1280 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge,Medak at Sangareddy.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The land in an extent of Ac.3.17 guntas coveredby Survey Nos. 293, 294, 295 and 296 situated atMallareddipet, H/o Bussareddipet Village was acquiredfor providing house sites to the weaker sections of thesociety, by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the1894 Act, on 08.06.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer,after taking into account and consideration the saletransactions that took place in the vicinity of the land inquestion, passed an award dated 10.03.1985, fixing thecompensation at Rs. 2,200/- per acre. The claimantsprotested the award and thereafter, the Land AcquisitionOfficer made a reference under Section 18 of the 1894Act to the civil Court for proper determination of thecompensation for the land in question.
Before the learned District Judge, Medak atSangareddy, the claimants have examined P.Ws.1 to 3
and filed Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the registered sale deeddated 02.11.1982. Ex.A2 is the sale deed dated06.04.1983 and Ex.A3 is the sale deed dated29.08.1986. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer,R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
The reference Court, after taking into account andconsideration the location of the lands as well as theproximate sale transactions, enhanced the compensationto Rs.9,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the saidenhancement, the claimants have filed the presentAppeal.
Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for theappellants contended that the reference Court ought tohave enhanced the compensation taking into accountExs.A1 and A2 sale deeds.
Heard the learned Government Pleader forAppeals.
The claimants, in support of their claim, examinedP.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 purchased 264 square yards of sitein Survey No. 294, for Rs.1500/- at the rate of Rs.5/- persquare yard under Ex.A1 sale deed, dated 02.11.1982. P.W.3 stated that he sold 300 square yards of land, forRs.1500/- at the rate of Rs.5/- per square yard underEx.A2 sale deed. The land covered by the aforesaid twotransactions are adjacent to the land acquired in thepresent case and they are of pre-notification saletransactions. So, necessarily, they have to be taken intoconsideration while fixing the compensation in the instantcase, but, however, since a large extent of land belonging to the claimants, admeasuring Ac.3.17 guntashas been acquired, necessary deductions have to bemade towards development charges. Therefore, takingall these aspects into account, we deem it appropriate tofix the compensation at Rs.24,000/- per acre. Afterdeducting one-third towards development charges, itcomes to Rs.16,000/- per acre. The compensationawarded by the reference Court at Rs.9,000/- per acre isenhanced to Rs.16,000/- per acre.
The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicatedabove. No costs.
---------------------------Ghulam Mohammed, J
---------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J
29[th] December 2009
ksld