Telangana High Court
AS/954/1998 of THE LAO CUM RDO. VICAABAD Vs P.SANGAIAH AND 21 ORS on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.954 OF 1998 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Vikarabad …Appellant Vs. P.Singaiah and others ..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.954 OF 1998
Dated. 31-12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Vikarabad
…Appellant
Vs.
P.Singaiah and others
..Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.954 of 1998
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the order of the learnedSubordinate Judge, Vikarabad in O.P.No.16 of 1994 enhancingthe market value of the acquired land.
An extent of Ac.30.12 guntas of land located in severalsurvey numbers, situated at Sirpuram Village was acquired forconstruction of percolation tank at Sirpuram village and draftnotification was given on 14-03-1991 and an award enquirywas conducted and market value was fixed at Rs.7,500/- peracre. The claimants were not satisfied with the fixation of themarket value and at their request, the matter was referred to thecivil court.
The claimants claimed that the land is potential with cropyielding capacity and the market value shall be fixed atRs.50,000/- with all attendant benefits.
On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to PW.4 wereexamined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the referringofficer RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1.
After considering the evidence on record, the learnedSubordinate Judge, enhanced the market value from Rs.7,500/-to Rs.15,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order the presentappeal is filed.
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 enhancement granted by the learnedSubordinate Judge is legal and sustainable?Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
There is no doubt about the fact that in a claim of thisnature, the burden is on the claimants to prove the potentialitiesand the real market value and further prove that the Land Acquisition Officer has granted the market value at a lower rateignoring the reality. In support of the claim, PW.1 who is one ofthe claimants claimed that the entire lands are black cottonlands and raised cash crops and the village is a developedone. He filed Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 19-03-1980 where underthe land in Sy.No.240 to an extent of Ac.1.01 guntas was soldat Rs.49,700/-; under Ex.A-2 sale deed, the land was sold atRs.19,000/- and also under Ex.A-3 sale deed dated 23-03-1990the land in Sy.No.109 to an extent of Ac.0.39 guntas was soldat Rs.17,000/-. According to him, the properties sold underExs.A-1 to A-3 are nearer to the acquired lands. PW.2 claims tohave purchased the land under Ex.A-1 and he spoke about thepassing of the consideration and the potentialities. PW.3 is thepurchaser of the land under Ex.A-3 and he spoke about thepotentialities. PW.4 deposed about the sale of the lands inSy.No.432 under Ex.A-2. Evidently, Exs.A-1 to A-3 sale deedsare relating to a small extents and they are not immediatelyabutting the acquired lands. The lower court also found that theclaimants have not produced any evidence about the income.The lower court also taken into consideration the lands underExs.A-1 to A-3 are nearer to the village. However, the learnedSubordinate Judge felt that Exs.A-1 to A-3 lands can not beequated with the acquired lands. However, taking intoconsideration the above circumstances, he fixed the marketvalue at Rs.15,000/- per acre. Further more, it is the contentionof the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that nodeduction was granted after the enhancement and the reasonsgiven by the learned Subordinate Judge is not sustainable. Evidently, the total extent of land was acquired for a percolationtank and the claimants have lost their agricultural lands, whichis only their source of income and there is no contrary evidenceto show that the lands under acquisition are barren or wastelands. It cannot be so since the lands come undersubmergence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstancesExs.A-1 to A-3 can be taken as relevant under the
Conclusion
circumstances and the value, location in those documentscannot be a basis for arriving at the market value, in fact whichwas not done by the learned Subordinate Judge and by someguess work and calculation he fixed the market value. We donot find any error in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.Therefore, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The pointsare 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