Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer/Rdo, ... vs Manda Madhunamma Ors. on 20 July, 2022
Author: G.Sri Devi
Bench: G.Sri Devi
HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
L.A.A.S.No.376 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present appeal is against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2002 in O.P.No.85 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals representing the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that, an extent of 0.03 guntas, a house and a well situated within the limits of Odela Village was acquired by the General Manager, Railways, for construction of Railway Platform at Odela Village. As per the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation to the acquired land @Rs.650/- per gunta, Rs.28,000/- to the house and Rs.21,000/- for the well. The claimants, having not satisfied with the compensation granted, preferred O.P.No.85 of 2001, before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, for enhancement of the compensation. The trial Court issued notices to both the parties for their appearance. The claimant No.1 filed her statement stating that 2 she is the owner and possessor of the said land, house and also well situated in Odela Mandal of Karimnagar district and the respondent had forcibly occupied the said land without paying any compensation. As such, the claimants filed W.P.No.30921 of 1994 before this Court and the Court vide its order dated 01.09.1994 directed the respondent to pay the compensation from 30.01.1982 along with additional market value @12% per annum and interest @9% from 30.01.1983 to 29.01.1988 and interest @15% from 30.01.1983 to till the date of realization. The respondent had not initiated any action on the orders passed by this Court. As such, the claimants filed contempt application vide C.A.No.742 of 1994 and on that, the respondent passed Award No.1 of 1995 dated 20.03.1995. In the said Award, the Land Acquisition Officer had not considered the registered sale deed filed by the claimants and had not considered the market value for the said land, house and well. The Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj, without estimating the value of well and house, deducted 30% from the estimated value of Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, the claimants claimed Rs.60,000/- per gunta to the acquired land and Rs.1,40,000/- to the house and Rs.60,000/- to the well.
3
4. On the other hand, the respondent authorities filed their statement contending that the claimants had not filed any documents in support of their claim at the time of Award and the Award was passed granting interest from the date of taking possession as per the market value.
5. The claimants in support of their case, examined PWs 1 & 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. The respondent examined RW1 on their behalf and marked Ex.B1.
6. The trial Court, having considered the evidence adduced and the material available on record, came to a conclusion that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed Award granting very meagre compensation to the claimants and hence allowed the O.P. in part with proportionate costs.
7. As seen from the order of the trial Court at paras 24 and 25, the learned trial Court basing on the Award Ex.B1, observed that the Land Acquisition Officer has not stated anything for reducing 30% on the estimated value of 30,000/- for well and Rs.40,000/- for the house. Accordingly, basing on the estimated value of the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Mandal Parishad, has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the acquired well and Rs.40,000/- to the acquired house. With 4 regard to the value of the acquired land, basing on the Ex.A12- certified copy of the registered sale deed, it was assessed @Rs.9,680 per gunta in the said sale deed. Accordingly the learned trial Court considered the said sale deed as genuine document, awarded a sum of Rs.9,680/- per gunta and partly allowed the O.P. with proportionate costs.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has not shown any ground with regard to exorbitant enhancement of the compensation awarded by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.09.2002 in O.P.No.85 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.
10. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI ______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.20.07.2022 ysk 5 HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI AND HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI LAAS.NO.376 OF 2006 Dt.20.07.2022 ysk 6