Telangana High Court
AS/154/1999 of - Vs - on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.154 OF 1999 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Khammam …Appellant Vs. E.Gopaiah ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.154 OF 1999
Dated. 31-12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Khammam
…Appellant
Vs.
E.Gopaiah
..Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.154 of 1999
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the enhancement of thecompensation in O.P.No.157 of 1987 on the file of the court ofSubordinate Judge, Kothagudem relating to an extent ofAc.0.20 guntas of dry land situated in Sy.No.294/6 of GoraramVillage, belonging to the claimant.
An extent of Ac.15.14 guntas of land was acquired by theGovernment for formation of P.W.D road from Kothagudem toLankapalli within the limits of Goraram village. A draftnotification was issued and possession was taken in 1971 andan award enquiry was conducted and award was passed on29-10-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the marketvalue at Rs.1500/- per acre and as the claimants were notsatisfied, the matter was referred to the civil court and theclaimants contended that market value of the acquired lands ismore and they getting annual income of not less thanRs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per acre and claimed market value @Rs.30,000/-. Along with this case, several other O.Ps were alsoclubbed together and a joint trial was conducted and thelearned Subordinate Judge enhanced the market value atRs.3,600/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal isfiled.
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:
The extent of the property involved in this appeal is onlyAc.0.20 guntas and the difference of compensation is only veryminimal. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering theevidence on record and the documents considered the awardof the Land Acquisition Officer. According to him, the learnedSubordinate Judge fixed the net income as not less thanRs.300/- even if it is a dry land and by applying capitalisation method, arrived the market value @ Rs.3,600/- per acre. Thelearned Subordinate Judge has given sufficient reasons andthe method adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge incoming to the fixation of the market value, when there are nocomparable sales which are acceptable, cannot be faulted. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the orderof the learned Subordinate Judge. Accordingly, the appeal suitis liable to 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
31-12-2010TSNR