Telangana High Court
AS/385/1998 of The Tasildar, Vs G. Laxman. on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.385 OF 1998 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Alampur …Appellant Vs. G.Laxmanna and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOA.S.NO.385 OF 1998
Dated. 31-12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Alampur
…Appellant
Vs.
G.Laxmanna and another
..Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.385 of 1998
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the order of the learnedSubordinate Judge, Gadwal in O.P.No.233 of 1990 (OldNo.1960 of 1984) enhancing the compensation of the acquiredland.
An extent of Ac.4.72 cents of land situated in Sy.No.719/1of Kyatur village was acquired for the purpose of providinghouse sites to the weaker sections of society and a draftnotification was given on 08-03-1982 and an award enquirywas conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed themarket value at Rs.1800/- per acre. The claimants were notsatisfied with the market value and they sought for a reference.
The claimants’ claim that the market value of the acquiredland is about Rs.25/- per square yard and they are entitled forthe same amount.
After the matter was referred, on behalf of the claimantsPWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked the certified copy ofJudgment in AS No.2786 of 1982 and batch on the file of thiscourt as Ex.A-1.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
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.
(1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
After considering the material on record, the learnedearned Subordinate Judge enhanced the market value @Rs.28,000/- and deducted 1/4[th] and accordingly fixed themarket value @ Rs.21,000/- per acre. The learned SubordinateJudge found that entire Kyathur village along with lands, housesites and structures have come under submergence underSrisailam Hydro Electric Project and under the Ex.A-1Judgment the High Court has fixed the market value at Rs.28,000/- as the entire village has submerged and even theresidential houses have gone under submergence. Since Ex.A-1 relates to the same village and it also effects the rights of theparties who lost their lands, it is the relevant piece of evidenceand the lower court has rightly considered the decision andtaken into consideration. Further, the lower court also granteddeduction at 1/4[th] which is reasonable. The learnedGovernment Pleader could not show as to how the reasonsgiven by the learned Subordinate Judge and the methodadopted by him to arrive at the market value is erroneous.When the entire village has gone under submergence andwhen the land is acquired for the purpose of providing housesites, evidently when the land is scarce, we do not find anyreasons to interfere with the fixation of the market value by thelearned Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the appeal suit is liableto be dismissed. The points are therefore answered.
Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
___________________
GODA RAGHURAM,J
_______________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
31 -12-2010
TSNR