Telangana High Court
AS/784/1998 of The Land Acquisition Officer AND Vs The Principal on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.784 OF 1998 Dated. -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Vanaparthy …Appellant Vs. The Principal, Islamia Arabic College, Kurnool ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.784 OF 1998
Dated. -12-2010
Between:
The Land Acquisition Officer, Vanaparthy …Appellant
Vs.
The Principal, Islamia Arabic College, Kurnool
..Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOA.S.NO.784 of 1998
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the order of the learnedSubordinate Judge, Gadwal in O.P.No.167 of 1987 enhancingmarket value of the acquired land from Rs.5,000/- toRs.11,000/- per acre.
The lands under acquisition situated at Sultanpur ofAlampur Taluk came under submergence. The draft notificationwas published on 30-05-1974 and an award enquiry wasconducted and the Land Acquisition Officer categorised thelands into “4” and fixed the compensation. The claimant wasnot satisfied with the market value and they claimed that thevalue of the land is not less than Rs.25,000/-.
On behalf of the claimant PWs.1 and 2 were examinedand marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondent RW.1was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked.
After considering the evidence on record, the learnedSubordinate Judge, enhanced the market value from Rs.5,000/-to Rs.11,000/-.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Page 1 of 2
(1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is real and sustainable?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
In support of the claim PW.1, who is said to be anemployee of the claimant-Arabic College, deposed that the landis a fertile land and the market value is Rs.25,000/- and in anearlier reference in O.P.No.230 of 1984 the court has fixed themarket value at Rs.12,000/- and further pleaded that cultivationaccounts i.e., Exs.A-2 and A-3 reflects the real value. PW.2claims that he was cultivating the acquired land which is said tobe fertile wet land yielding crop. The learned SubordinateJudge Therefore, the appeal suit is 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
31-12-2010
TSNR
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…