AS/2647/2003 of The Land Acquisition Unit and Vs K. Badarinarayana, on 29 December 2010

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASADANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

A.S.Nos.1205 of 2002, 2647 of 2003, 2652 of 2003and 635of 2004

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar)

The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram disposed ofL.A.O.P.Nos.216 of 1996, 218 of 1996, 221 of 1996 and 222 of 1996 and fourother cases through a common order dated 16.02.2001. These appeals areby the State in respect of L.A.O.P.Nos.216, 218, 221 and 222 of 1996. Ascommon questions of fact and law arose in all the appeals, they are beingdisposed of through this common order.

2. The lands in J.Annavaram village were acquired by the SpecialDeputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru Reservoir Project, for thepurpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project. The lands of the claimants in the abovereferred cases were also acquired along with the lands of several otherformers. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No.8 of1989 on 28.02.1989 determining the market value of the property at differentrates for different categories of land and primarily the value was determinedat Rs.18,000/- per acre for dry-cum-wet land, at Rs.12,000/- per acre for dryland and at Rs.4,300/- per acre for uncultivable lands. The claimants, whoare the respondents herein and others, were not satisfied with the awardedamount. On their request, reference was made under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act. Thus, the cases came before the learned Senior Civil Judge,Pithapuram.

3. The learned Senior Civil Judge determined the value of theacquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land through the impugnedorder. The Government preferred the present appeals contending that thevalue as determined by the reference Court is unjust and is on the higher

4. Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Appealsand Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the claimantsappeared and advanced their submissions.

5. Before the reference Court, the claimants examined two witnessesas PWs 1 and 2. The Land Acquisition Officer examined the Junior Assistantof the R.D.O’s office as R.W.1. However, the relevance is documentaryevidence on the basis of which the impugned common order was passed bythe reference Court. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the judgment inA.S.No.2913 of 1996, which is a judgment of the Division Bench of thisCourt. It relates to properties acquired for Yeleru Reservoir Project in variousvillages, which are adjoining J.Annavaram in which village the properties inthe present case are located. The Division Bench of this Court determinedthe market value of dry lands of this locality at Rs.40,000/- per acre. Thelearned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram adopted the same as admittedly thelands covered in A.S.No.2913 of 1996 on the file of this Court and the landsin the present case are situate in neighbouring and adjoining villages and areof similar potency. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, therefore,was justified in determining the market value of the acquired property atRs.40,000/- per acre as they were dry lands.

6. The learned Government Pleader’s contention that the valuearrived at by the reference Court is not proper and is not just cannot beaccepted where the reference Court based its decision on an earlier decisionof the Division Bench of this Court in Ex.A.1. The valuation of the acquiredproperty at Rs.40,000/- per acre for the dry land therefore, is perfectly justifiedand deserves to be confirmed. There are no merits in the batch of thisappeals. The appeals therefore deserves to be dismissed.

7. It may be pointed out that when the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram determine the market value of the acquired property atRs.40,000/- per acre, he granted additional market value and solatium to theclaimants but declined to grant interest on additional market value andsolatium as the then prevailing view of the Supreme Court was that interest isnot payable on additional market value and solatium. However, the Supreme

Court took the view in Sunder v Union of India[[1]]that a claimant whoselands are acquired is not only entitled to market value of the acquiredproperty, additional market value and solatium, but also entitled to interestover the market value as well as additional market value and solatium. Thisis a statutory benefit. The claimants are not liable to be deprived of thestatutory benefit. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to the statutory benefitof interest over not only the market value of the acquired property, but also onthe additional market value and solatium thereon.

8. With this observation, the appeals are dismissed as devoid ofmerits. No costs.

_____________________

G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J

________________

K.G.SHANKAR,J

29[th] December, 2010.

PNV

[1]2001(5) ALD 136