Telangana High Court
AS/977/1994 of The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) Vs Muvvala Chittamma on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.977 OF 1994 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam …Appellant Vs. Muvva Chittemma ..Respondent 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.977 OF 1994
Dated. 31-12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam …Appellant
Vs.
Muvva Chittemma
..Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOA.S.NO.977 of 1994
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.40 of1985 on the file of the court of I Additional Subordinate Judge,Visakhapatnam.
An extent of Ac.0.33 1/5 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.9/2and 10/1 and 2 belonging to the claimant situated at PedaWaltair village was acquired and an award was passed on 31-03-1981 fixing the market value @ Rs.9.59 paise persquare yard together with value of the trees and structuresthereon. The claimant was not satisfied with the compensationand accordingly at her instance, the reference was made to thecivil court.
The claimant contended that the land in that area wascosting to Rs.100/- per square yard as on the date ofnotification, which is 02-12-1979 and the value was fixed for thestructures was also low and wanted compensation to be fixedat Rs.100/- per square yard and Rs.50/- per each tree. Thelearned Senior Civil Judge fixed the market value @Rs.12.60 paise and granted the attendant benefits. Aggrievedby the said order, the present appeal is filed.
In support of the claim of the claimant, PWS.1 and 2 wereexamined and marked Ex.A-1 and on behalf of the referringofficer, the award was marked as Ex.B-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 enhancement granted by the learnedSenior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable?Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
As can be seen from the order of the lower court, the LandAcquisition Officer has considered several sales and took intoconsideration a sale deed dated 02-06-1978. The claimantrelied on a sale deed (Ex.A-1) dated 15-12-1978 of a house plot of 460 square yards which was sold at Rs.40/- per square yard.The lower court found that the sale transaction is for a differentland, is away and not having the similar potentialities. The Ex-Village Munsiff was examined as PW.2 and he deposed aboutthe market value during the year 1978-79 is Rs.60/- per squareyard. The lower court also found that the arrival of the marketvalue by the Land Acquisition Officer is also not real. But,however the lower court taking into consideration that the saletransactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2 relied on by the claimant isnearer to the date of notification and the property is in adeveloped and approved lay out area, certain deductions canbe made and accordingly deducted 50% of the value, becausethe property is not in a developed area and deducted Rs.8.40paise towards reclamation charges and arrived at Rs.11.80paise per square yard and taking into consideration the time lagbetween the date of notification being 22-03-1979 and the saledeed (Ex.A-1) being dated 15-12-1978, an amount of Rs.1/- persquare yard was given as waitage to the price andconsequently arrived at the market value at Rs.12.60 ps. Themarket value fixed for the structures and trees was confirmedby the lower court.
Taking into consideration the extent of the land and thereasons given by the lower court for enhancement which byany reason cannot be said to be abnormal or excessive, we donot find any grounds to interfere with the order of the lowercourt. Accordingly, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed.The points are therefore answered accordingly.
Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
___________________
GODA RAGHURAM,J
_______________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
31-12-2010
TSNR