Supreme Court of India
ADAVALA SATHAIAH AND ORS. versus THE SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT I AND ORS. on 26 November 1996
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.
ADAVALA SATHAIAH AND ORS.
v.
THE SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT I AND ORS.
A
NOVEMBER 26, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI,JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
La11d acquisition-Compensation-Detem1i11ation of-Land acqulSl-C tion for erection of National 1hennal Power Corporation-Award for com-pensation by Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 4000 and Rs. 4500 per acre for Group l and Group II respectively-Enhancement of compensatio11 by Ref-erence Court to Rs. 10, 000 and Rs. 11, 500 for Group I and II respectivelr High Cowt remanded the matter to T1ial Court for reconsideration- Ap-peal-Held, all the la1tds were agricultural lands at the time of acquisition D and their prevaili11g market value varies betwee11 Rs. 6, 000 to Rs. 6,500 per acre-Held, just a11d proper compe11satio11 in the circumstances would be @ Rs. 6000 per acre unifom1ly for all the lands.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15487 of E
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.92 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. No. 2660 of 1985.
A. Subba Rao and Annam Q.N. Rao for the Appellants.
K.C. Dua and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 to 14 and 18 have, left their respective · G places without any instructions as per endorsement made by the Postal authorities. Under these circumstances, notice on them is not necessary. Regarding respondent Nos. 4, 7 to 10, 15 to 17 and 19 to 20, it is stated that neither unserved envelops nor AD. Cards have been received back by the Registry. Under these circumstances, they must be deemed to have been served. Even though the petitioners succeed, these respondents can- H 209
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A not get the same benefit because they did not challenge the award. They being pro forma respondents, notice on them is not necessary.
Leave granted.
' <<< Heard learned counsel on both sides.
B
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the A.P. High Court, made on March 3, 1992 in the Appeal NO. 2660/85. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on D~cember 8, 1979, acquiring 71 acres 12 cents of land for the public purpose, namely, erection of National Thermal Power Corporation. C The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4000 and Rs. 4500 per acre for Group I and Group II of the lands. On reference, the subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation tO Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,500 per acre for Group I and Group II respectively. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsidera-D tion. Thus ·this appeal by special leave.
It is seen that all the lands were agricultural lands at the time of acquisition and their prevailing market value varies between Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 6,500 per acre. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper if the compensation is fixed at Rs. 6,000 per acre uniformly to all the lands.
E It is ordered accordingly.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.