a prime locality, they have potential value.enhanced from Rs.65/-to Rs.150/-per square yard, = Though the transactions covered under Exs.A5 and A6 are not comparable sales, admittedly, the acquired land is situated at a distance of 1 ½ furlong from Secunderabad to Karimnagar road at Alwal. The admitted fact that the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society and are situated in a prime locality, they have potential value. In view of the escalation of prices within the vicinity of Hyderabad and as the acquired land is situated near to the main road, we are of the view that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as confirmed by the Court below, is meagre and therefore, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the market value.

LAAS 758 / 2011

LAASSR 828 / 2011

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
D.VITTAL RAO AND 32 OTHERS  VSDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE & LAO, HYDERABAD AND OTHER
PET.ADV. : SRIDHARRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: LAND ACQUISITION SUITSDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
FILING DATE:  29-01-2011POSTING STAGE :  FOR JUDGMENTDISPOSED ON  :  29-03-2012  PANC
REG. DATE    :   25-08-2011LISTING DATE :  29-03-2012STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):GHULAM MOHAMMED    

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO

 

L.A.A.S.Nos.74 of 2010 and 758 of 2011

 

 

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

           

Since both these appeals are filed against the order of dismissal dated 28.01.2002 passed in O.P.No.393 of 1989 by the learned First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.  In LAAS No.758 of 2011, the appellants are represented by their GPA holder.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 12.05.1979, the land admeasuring Ac.4.33 gts equivalent to 23353 sq. yards in Sy.No.9 of East Marredpally village, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and other weaker sections of the society.  
After service of notices to the claimants, 
the Land Acquisition Officer had conducted enquiry and fixed the market value at Rs.65/-per square yard by considering nine sale transactions in the vicinity took place during the years 1977 to 1979. Having not satisfied with the said market value, the claimants filed petitions, and thereupon the matter was referred to the civil Court.

3.       The claimants filed claim statement stating that as 
the acquired land is situated near to the main road leading from Secunderabad to Alwal i.e., Karimangar, which is a commercial highway, near to ACC Centre and the surrounding areas have already been built up as on the date of draft notification, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is meagre, unfair and unjust.  
Hence, they prayed to enhance the compensation from Rs.65/- to Rs.500/-per square yard.

4.       During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were got marked on behalf of the claimants.  R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were got marked on behalf of the referring officer.  
The Court below after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and the material on record, dismissed the O.P. confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.65/-per square yard. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeals.

5.     Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Court below has failed to fix the correct market value of the land acquired, which is situated near to the main road leading from Secunderabad to Alwal and is fully developed with residential houses, and it erroneously dismissed the O.P.

6.   Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the Court below after considering the evidence adduced and the material documents has rightly dismissed the O.P., by the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court.

7.     Now, the point for consideration is 
whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer?

8.    The Government had acquired the land to an extent of Ac.4.33 gts situated in Sy.No.9 of East Marredpally village, belonging to the claimants, and after due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs.65/-per square yard vide award dated 23.01.1988.  
The claimants had mainly relied upon the sale transactions covered under Exs.A5 to A8. They state that the properties covered under Exs.A5 and A6 were sold at Rs.200/- and Rs.227/-per square yard, respectively. 
Exs.A7 and A8 are the connected certificates. 
The Court below held that the properties under Exs.A5 and A6 are neither adjacent nor within the vicinity of the acquired land in Sy.No.9, to rely upon the same and they are house properties.

9.     Though the transactions covered under Exs.A5 and A6 are not comparable sales, admittedly, the acquired land is situated at a distance of 1 ½ furlong from Secunderabad to Karimnagar road at Alwal.  The admitted fact that the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society and are situated in a prime locality, they have potential value.  In view of the escalation of prices within the vicinity of Hyderabad and as the acquired land is situated near to the main road, we are of the view that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as confirmed by the Court below, is meagre and therefore, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the market value.

10.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, the market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is enhanced from Rs.65/-to Rs.150/-per square yard, which is just and proper. The claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and also as per the amended Act.

11.    Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned order dated 28.01.2002 passed in O.P.No.393 of 1989 is set aside. Consequently, O.P.No.393 of 1989 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
                                                                                                   
_____________________
          GHULAM MOHAMMED, J


_______________

K.S.APPA RAO, J

Date:29.03.2012
sj

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.