AS/1495/2001 of LAO AND SPL DY COLLECTOR YRP PEDDAPURAM Vs K.NARAYANA MURTHY on 30 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND TEN

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR

A.S.No.1495 of 2001

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RevenueDivisional Officer, Peddapuram Kondapally Narayana Murthy

AND

.. Appellant

.. Respondent

JUDGMENT: (Per. K.G. Shankar, J)

The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, passed order on 30-12-2000 in O.P.No.51 of 1996 in a reference under Section 18 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 in the claim by the claimant.

When Yeleru Reservoir Project was contemplated, vastlands in Visakhapatnam and East Godavari Districts wereacquired. Ac.23.62 cents of land in J. Annavaram village wereacquired for the Yeleru Reservoir Project. These lands are situatein different survey numbers. The Land Acquisition Officerawarded compensation at Rs.20,160/- per acre for the acquiredland. Apart from Rs.1,596/- towards value of the trees, he alsogranted solatium and additional market value. Not satisfied withthe market value as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer,the claimants got the matters referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Three matters inO.P.Nos.50, 51 and 52 of 1996 were clubbed and were disposed ofby a common order by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.Out of the three petitions, Government preferred the presentappeal in respect of O.P.No.51 of 1996 questioning the impugnedorder.

Heard Sri S. Md. Haneef, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Appeals. The respondent-claimant was served withnotice. However, no one appeared for the respondent-claimant.

The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pipthapuram placed relianceupon the judgments of separate Division Benches of this Court inA.S.Nos.972 of 1996 and 2733 of 1996 certified copies of whichwere marked as Exs.A.2 and A.3 in determining the market valueof the acquired lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre as only wet landswere involved in these cases. The learned Assistant GovernmentPleader contended that the values as adopted by the learnedSenior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, are not correct and that the valuesadopted by the Land Acquisition Officer were appropriate andreasonable.

The claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 before the referenceCourt, while the Land Acquisition Officer examined the SeniorAssistant of the Revenue Divisional Office, Peddapuram, on behalfof the Land Acquisition Officer. Where the learned Senior CivilJudge, Pithapuram adopted the valuation of the acquiredproperties on the strength of earlier decisions of this Court, thelearned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, was perfectly justified inadopting the market values as determined in A.S.No.2733 of 1996as well as in A.S.No.972 of 1996 on the file of this Court. In fact,this Court awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre throughthe judgment in A.S.No.972 of 1996. However, this Court granted compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre through its judgment inA.S.No.2733 of 1996. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuramadopted the market value of the acquired property in accordancewith the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2733 of 1996 marked asEx.A.3. The finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuramin determining the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre for wetlands following the decision of a Division Bench of this Courtcannot be questioned, where the Division Bench was dealing withthe lands acquired for the same purpose in neighbouring villagesas the lands acquired in this present case. The judgment of thelearned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram regarding the market valueof the acquired lands deserved to be confirmed.

Conclusion

At the time of disposal of the case by the learned SeniorCivil Judge, Pithapuram, the Supreme Court considered that theclaimant under Land Acquisition Act would not be entitled tointerest over additional market value and solatium. Subsequently,in Sundar v. Union of India[[1]]the Supreme Court held that theclaimants in Land Acquistion references would be entitled tointerest over the market value as well as solatium. Consequently,the claimant herein shall be entitled to the statutory benefit ofinterest over the additional market value and solatium apart frominterest over the market value of the acquired property. So far asthe claim of the Government that the learned Senior Civil Judge,Pithapuram, did not properly determined the market value of theacquired property is concerned, it is found that the learned SeniorCivil Judge, Pithapuram determined the market value of theacquired property correctly on the basis of various decisions ofthe Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, the finding of thelearned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in this regard isconfirmed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed except to the extent ofinterest portion. The claimant shall be entitled to interest over theadditional market value and solatium also apart from interest overthe additional market value of the acquired property at the samerates as awarded by the reference Court. No costs.

_____________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

Date: 30-12-2010Ksn

________________

K. G. SHANKAR, J

[1]2001 (5) ALD 136