Telangana High Court
AS/39/1999 of Governmet of A.P. Vs Lingareddy on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.39 OF 1999 Dated. -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Siddipet …Appellant Vs. Linga Reddy and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOA.S.NO.39 OF 1999
Dated. -12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Siddipet
…Appellant
Vs.
Linga Reddy and others
..Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOA.S.NO.39 of 1999
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.29 of1985 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Siddipet.
An extent of Ac.3.01 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.772/1 to772/4 situated at Tadkapally village was acquired for providinghouse sites to the weaker sections of society and a draftnotification was issued on 11-07-1999 and the Land AcquisitionOfficer conducted the inquiry and passed the award forRs.5,000/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with thefixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer andaccordingly a reference was made to the civil court.
The claimants pleaded that the market value of theacquired land is nearly Rs.16,000/- with potentialities, whichwas the claim before the Land Acquisition Officer.
On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examinedand marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the referring officernone were examined but Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked.
After considering the material on record, the learnedSubordinate Judge enhanced the market value from Rs.5,000/-to Rs.9,000/- 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 market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
In support of the claim, the first claimant was examined asPW.1. PW.2 who was stated to have purchased Ac.0.04 guntasof land for Rs.1600/- under Ex.A-1 sale deed from claimantNo.2 on 05-06-1979 was examined and order copy inO.P.No.70 of 1985 was marked as Ex.A-2. The learnedSubordinate Judge found that Ex.A-2 order relates to aneighbouring village in Marpadaga and though the said village is adjacent, since there are sale deeds available in the village, itcannot be taken into consideration. He also found that thenotification under the present dispute is in 1979 and whereasthe notification pertaining to Ex.A-2 is in 1984. The lower courtalso took into consideration the potentialities of the landacquired and also accepted the authenticity of the saletransaction under Ex.A-1 which is supported by the evidence ofPW.2, taking into consideration that Ex.A-1 relates to a smallextent of land and also the fact that the village is a developedone, 50% of the deduction was made from the considerationunder Ex.A-1 and fixed the market value at Rs.9,000/- per acre.As can be seen from the material on record, there seems to beno error committed by the learned Subordinate Judge in comingto a conclusion and the claim of the claimants cannot be said tobe devoid of merits. Therefore, in view of the abovecircumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere with theorder of the lower court. Accordingly, the appeal suit is liable tobe 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