AS/1175/2001 of THE R.D.O.(L.A.)NANDYAL. Vs SMT.CHENNALAKSHAMMA. on 31 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TEN

PRESENT

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAnd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT No.1175 OF 2001

Between:

The Revenue Divisional OfficerLand Acquisition,Nandyal, Kurnool District.

And

Smt. Chenna Lakshamma

AND

..... Appellant

…Respondent

APPEAL SUIT No.1266 OF 2001

Between:

The Revenue Divisional OfficerLand Acquisition,Nandyal, Kurnool District.

And

Kalava Deva Rayulu

..... Appellant

…Respondent

The Court made the following:

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

APPEAL SUIT Nos.1175 and 1266 OF 2001

COMMON JUDGMENT:(PerHon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad)

A.S.No.1175 of 2001 is directed against the award inO.P.No.91 of 1991 and A.S.No.1266 of 2001 is directed against theaward in O.P.No.93 of 1991, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’sCourt, Nandyal, dated 24.10.2000, which awards were rendered inpursuance of the common order in O.P.No.73 of 1991 and batch.

2. The common order in question was already the subject ofadjudication in the connected appeals arising against the samecommon order before this Court and a Division Bench held in FirstAppeal No.1440 of 2001 on 16.11.2004 that having regard to theinvolvement of trivial and insignificant amounts, the appeal, in theconsidered opinion of their Lordships, ought not to have beenpreferred by the State. Though their Lordships stated that thejudgment would not operate as a precedent, the appeal wasdismissed without costs.

3. Another Division Bench of this Court was dealing with fourappeals arising out of the same common order in A.S.No.1267 of2001 and batch and in the judgment, dated 28.12.2006, theDivision Bench reduced the compensation from Rs.50,000/- peracre to Rs.40,000/- per acre, of course with all the consequentialstatutory benefits.

4. It is seen from the material on record that the land of the claimant in O.P.No.91 of 1991 acquired by the Government is Ac. 0.32 cents, whereas the land of the claimant in O.P.No.93 of1991 so acquired is Ac. 0.17 cents. They are trivial extents andthe value of the first Appeal is Rs.13,600/-, whereas the value ofthe second appeal is Rs.7,225/-. The impugned common ordershows that the claimants were living by cultivation of the landsacquired and any reduction in the compensation awarded by thereference Court at this distance of time will make thecompensation received by the claimants in real terms, much lessthan what will be ordered, due to the decline in the value of therupee in between. The claimants deprived of their properties for apublic purpose, need not be further disadvantaged by interferencewith the awards in these two cases, as the amounts involved cancertainly be considered to be too trivial and insignificant, like inA.S.No.1440 of 2001. Both the appeals have also toconsequentially fail on the same lines.

5. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed without costs,but this judgment shall not operate as a precedent in any othercase.

_______________________

(G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J)

_______________________

(K.G. SHANKAR, J)

Date: 31[st] December, 2010 KL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADAnd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

APPEAL SUIT Nos.1175 and 1266 OF 2001(Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad)

December 31, 2010.

KL