AS/1213/1999 of The LA Officer AND Spl. Dy. Collector (LA), Vs I. Ramayya, on 24 December 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

L.A.A.S.NO. 1213 OF 1999

DATE: 24/12/2009

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA), YRP Unit-III, Peddapuram

..... Appellant/Referring Officer

AND

Ijjanagiri Ramayya S/o Ramanna, 60 years, cultivation, Yeleswaram

.....RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA), hasfiled this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.168 of 1986 dated31.7.1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram,wherein and whereby the lower court fixed the compensation from Rs.11,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per acre.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a vast extent of Ac. 2,303.37 centssituated in Lakkavaram Village was acquired for Submergeable area forYeleru Reservoir Project Construction Division No. II, Yeleswaram videnotification published in the Gazettee, dated 13.5.1981 issued under Section4(1) of the Act. The subject matter of the appeal is an extent of Ac.6.29 centsin S.No. 56/3 of Lakkavaram Village as per award No. 53/85 dated15.11.1985. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedureprescribed under law, awarded compensation @ Rs. 11,000/- per acre. Therespondent/claimant received the compensation amount under protest andasked for making the reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Awardhas been accordingly referred to and taken on file by the Subordinate Judge,Peddapuram in O.P.Nos. 119 of 1986 and 168 of 1986. The learnedSubordinate Judge, Peddapuram upon appreciation of both the oral anddocumentary evidence made available on record, fixed the market value of

3. In order to establish the claim, the respondent/claimant examined RWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B-11 and on behalf of ReferringOfficer, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram fixed the marketvalue of the acquired land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre taking into consideration ofEx. B-9, certified copy of the common judgment dated 6.4.1988 passed inO.P.No. 124 of 1986 and 125 of 1986. The lands covered by the said twoO.Ps were situated in Lakkavaram Village and they were also acquired bythe Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance of notification issued under Section4(1) of the Act and while disposing of the O.Ps, the lower Court hasenhanced the market value of the said land to Rs. 30,000/- for the lands forwhich the Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs. 11,000/- per acre. This Courtwhile disposing of the appeals preferred against the judgment and decree inO.P.No. 124 of 1986 i.e., against the judgment covered by Ex. B-9,confirmed the enhancement made by the reference Court stating that fixationof market value of the land in question at Rs. 30,000/- per acre is justified. Italso held that the claimant is entitled for solatium at 30% per annum andclaimant also entitled to 12% per annum additional market value on theenhanced market value of the land from the date of notification under Section4(1) of the Act i.e., from 13.5.1981 till the date of award i.e., 15.11.1985. Italso held that the claimant also entitled to interest on the compensationamount at 9% per annum from 1.7.1988 for one year and thereafter at 15%per annum till the payment is made.

5. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also thelearned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

6. The learned Government Pleader submits that in similarcircumstances this Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order passedby the Court below in A.S.No. 1278 of 1999 dated 1.3.2007.

7. In view of the above statement, without going into the merits of thecase, we hold that we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by thereference Court under Section 18 of the Act and the reference Court hasrightly enhanced the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. We see nomerits in the appeal.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as tocosts.

___________________

GHULAM MOHAMMED,J

24[th] December , 2009.

_______________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

KA

To