Telangana High Court
AS/1110/1998 of . Vs . on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1110 OF 1998 Dated. 31 -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Nalgonda …Appellant Vs. G.Somakka ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.1110 OF 1998
Dated. 31 -12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Nalgonda
…Appellant
Vs.
G.Somakka
..Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.1110 of 1998
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officeraggrieved by the order in O.P.No.15 of 1986 on the file of thecourt of Subordinate Judge, Suryapet enhancing thecompensation to Rs.30,000/-.
An extent of Ac.3.30 cents of land situated in Sy.No.48 ofAnantharam village was acquired for providing house sites tothe weaker sections of society and a notification was given on29-10-1980 and an award after enquiry was passed on 18-01-1983 fixing the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre. Theclaimant was not satisfied with the market value and he claimedthat the value per acre is Rs.15,000/- and the claimant furtherclaimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the well. Hence thereference.
On behalf of the claimant, Pws.1 to 6 were examined andmarked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.X-1 to X-11. No evidence isadduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer but awarddated 18-01-1983 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 learnedSubordinate Judge is reasonable and correct?Subordinate Judge is reasonable and correct?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
In support of the claim, reliance is placed on Ex.X-1certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 19-05-1979where under an extent of Ac.2.14 was purchased @Rs.30,000/- per acre prior to the notification. Ex.X-2 is the saledeed where under PW.2 purchased the land in Sy.No.48 on 20-11-1990 and constructed a house. It shows that the consideration was Rs.5,000/- per gunta. The said documentsrelied on by the claimants have no relevancy to come to theauthentic value of the property. The learned Subordinate Judgefound that the Government has not produced any evidenceforgetting the fact that it is the duty of the claimant to prove thepotentialities and the real market value. However, he took intoconsideration the sale deed under Ex.X-1 which was prior tothe notification and therefore fixed the market value. Thoughthe reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge are notelaborate, but however the fact remains that prior to thenotification Ex.X-1 sale transaction has taken place and there isno material to find that in anticipation of the acquisition, the saledeed was brought into existence. Further more, Anantharam issaid to be in a developed area. The learned Subordinate Judgehas also increased the valuation of the well. Taking intoconsideration the above facts and available sale deed underEx.X-1 the market value fixed by the learned SubordinateJudge cannot be said to be excessive. So also the fixation ofthe valuation for the well appears to be based on someevidence, which was accepted by the lower court. Therefore,we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of thelearned Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the appeal suit is liableto 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