Telangana High Court
AS/2587/2000 of K.NARAYANA REDDY Vs R.D.O. SANGAREDDY on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2587 OF 2000 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: K.Narayana Reddy …Appellant Vs. Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND
ZTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOA.S.NO.2587 OF 2000Dated. 31-12-2010
Between:
K.Narayana Reddy
…Appellant
Vs.
Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad
..Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
A.S.NO.2587 OF 2000
JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J)
This appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.394 of1982 on the file of the court of Additional District Judge, Medakat Sangareddy in not satisfying with the market value grantedby the learned District Judge.
Some lands were acquired at Patancheru forestablishment of the industrial development area and the draftnotification was given on 2-09-1976 and possession of thelands was taken on different dates and an award enquiry wasconducted and the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed themarket value at Rs.6,500/- per acre. An extent of Ac.2.17guntas of land belonging to the present appellant who is thepetitioner in O.P.No.394 of 1982 was acquired along with someother petitioners’ land. Along with this O.P, two other O.Ps wereclubbed together and all the claimants stated that the landacquired is very fertile and crop yielding and there are very highpotentialities and they are entitled to compensation @ Rs.40/-per square yard.
After the reference was made to the court on behalf of theclaimants PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the referring officer Exs.B-1 and B-2 weremarked.
After considering the material evidence on record, thelearned Additional District Judge fixed the market value @Rs.11,000/- per acre. In not satisfying with that compensation,the claimant in O.P.No.394 of 1982 has filed the present appealfor further enhancement of the market value @ Rs.25,000/- peracre.
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 market value fixed by the learnedAdditional District Judge is real and correct?Additional District Judge is real and correct?
(2) To what relief?
POINTS:
The appellant did not go into the box but the claimant in the
connected O.P.No.392 of 1982 was examined as PW.1. Thelearned Additional District Judge found that the sale deedsunder Exs.A-1 and A-2 relied on by the claimant relate to verysmall extent of land and there is also a difference about thecomparability and therefore did not take into considerationthose sale transactions. However, the learned Additional DistrictJudge found that the acquired lands are nearer to the villageand there is a potentiality. The learned judge also found thatLand Acquisition Officer did not take into consideration thepotentialities, value of the land inherent in it and also took intoconsideration the fact that the lands are useful for locatingindustries and taking into consideration the decree inO.P.No.156 of 1978 under Ex.B-1 relating to acquisition in thesame area where under the court had fixed the market value atRs.10,000/-, the learned Judge has accordingly fixed themarket value @ Rs.11,000/- per acre. The appellantscould not show as to how the arrival of the market value by thelower court is incorrect. Evidently, some repeated contentionswere raised about the potentiality and reliance is placed onExs.A-1 to A-3, which was rejected by the lower court for validreasons. Merely because there is a potentiality of the lands itcannot be a fanciful determination of the market value. Theappellant being in a position of the plaintiff has to establish thesame. Therefore, we do not find any error in arriving at themarket value by the learned District Judge. But, however, ascould be seen from the judgment, the learned Additional DistrictJudge has granted solatium and also interest on the solatiumfrom the date of taking possession, which was 04-01-1977 andaward was passed on 09-05-1977 and the notificationwas given in 1976. The judgment in this case was delivered on14-05-1984. The claimants are not granted all the statutorybenefits including the additional market value of 12% and theinterest thereon. Therefore, in view of the above circumstancesand keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits and interest thereon. The learned Additional District Judge alsogranted solatium @ 15% but the amended provisions of theLand Acquisition Act,1894 ( for short “the Act”) have gotretrospective effect and will be applied to the cases pendingbefore the court. As it has got retrospective effect as per thedecision reported in K.Kamala Jammanivaru (died) rep. By
L.Rs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer ([[1]]), the benefitsapply to awards made after 30-04-1982 and before 24-09-1984also and to further appeals made to the High Court andSupreme Court arising from such awards. Therefore, theclaimant will be entitled to the benefits of solatium at 30% andadditional market value with all statutory benefits.
Accordingly, with the above modification the appeal isallowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
GODA RAGHURAM,J
_______________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
31-12-2010
TSNR
[1]1985 (1) ALT 383