Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1653/2013 of Seetharamaraju Subrahmanya Chakardhar Vs Land Acquisition Officer, on 31 December 2020
SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1653 OF 2013 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.2536 of 2012 in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 2003 by learned Principal Senior
THE HON’BLESMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1653 OF 2013
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.
ORDER:-
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.2536 of 2012 in L.A.O.P.No.53 of 2003 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru wherein the petition filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their agricultural lands situated in Vatluru village, West Godavari District were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘L.A.O.’) for the purpose of formation of Mini bye-pass road by awarding an amount of Rs.1,58,560/- each to the petitioners. Questioning the quantum of compensation the petitioners have filed application before L.A.O. and the same was referred to the Court below and the same is numbered as O.P.No.53 of 2003.
3. During pendency of the said O.P., the petitioners have filed I.A.No.2536 of 2012 with a prayer for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to observe entire topography of the locality around the acquired lands, to note down the physical features and to draw rough sketch. After considering the contentions advanced on either side, the Court below has dismissed the said petition by observing that the petitioners filed the said petition seeking appointment of commissioner for noting down the topography and developments as on that day, but L.A.O. awarded compensation by taking into consideration the contemporary sales and value of the land as on the date of acquisition while passing award No.1 of 2002 dated 02.03.2002 and hence, opined that noting down of the topography of the area and developments as on that day would not serve a useful purpose as their lands were acquired way back on 05.12.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Heard Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Paturi Srinivas Chowday, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit schedule property acquired by respondent No.1 is situated under the lift irrigation of Krishna Canal and the soil in the subject property is highly fertile, as such the Court ought to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for determining the compensation, the situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding areas, availability of land, demand for the land and development in that area are essential factors. The Court below failed to take into consideration all these factors. As such the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners is very much essential to determine the compensation. Further Advocate Commissioner can be appointed at any stage of the proceedings and the commissioner’s report is very essential for deciding the real controversy and the Court below failed to take into consideration all these issues.
6. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the Court below dismissed the interlocutory application as the compensation was awarded taking into consideration the contemporary sales and value of the land as on the date of the acquisition of the suit schedule property. This interlocutory application was filed seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to observe entire topography of the locality where and around the acquired lands are situated and to note down physical features and to draw the rough sketch after lapse of several years. The Court below has come to a conclusion that allowing interlocutory application is not useful for the petitioners because the topography of the lands as in the year 2013 is not helpful to the petitioners as their lands were acquired in the year 1997 itself. The reasoning given by the Court below was perfectly legal and this Court do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below.
7. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Date: 31.12.2020 IKN
____________________________________
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
THE HON’BLESMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
IKN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1653 of 2013
Date: 31.12.2020