award the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre together with all statutory benefits. = the valuation of the lands of Suraram village as reflected from Exs.A.3 to A.5, particularly in view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1.30,000/- per acre in respect of the land belonging to some of the claimants, who gave consent for acquisition, the reference Court held that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.46,500/- per acre was absolutely low and inadequate and accordingly thought it fit to award the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre together with all statutory benefits.


THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE

G. ROHINI

and

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


 LAAS Nos.161/2011 & cross objections
LAAS Nos.162/2011 & cross objections
LAAS Nos.213/2011 & cross objections
LAAS Nos.323/2011 & cross objections


COMMON JUDGMENT

                   (per the Honourable Ms. Justice G. ROHINI)

          These four appeals are filed by the A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd., represented by its Authorized Signatory, Hyderabad, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) aggrieved by the common order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem (herein after referred to as the ‘reference Court’) in LAOP.Nos.1 to 4 of 2010 contending that the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre is excessive and not based on the evidence available on record. 
On the other hand, the respondents/claimants in all the OPs filed cross objections with a prayer to grant further enhancement as per the claim made by them i.e. at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.
          We have heard Sri C.Raghu, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Hari Sreedhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/cross objectors. 
          As could be seen from the material available on record, the land belonging to the respondents-claimants  situated in Suraramvillage of Paloncha Mandal was acquired for the purpose of construction of Northern ash  pond of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station O &  M (V Stage) by notification dated 02.05.2006 published under Section 4(1) of the Act.  After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 23-6-2009 being award No.1/2009 fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.46,500/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and thus OP Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2010 have been taken up by the reference Court.
On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined before the reference court and Exs.A-1 to A-9 documents were marked to substantiate their claim. None was examined on behalf of the Referring Officer, however, Ex.B-1-award dated 23.06.2009 was marked.
On appreciation of the said evidence, the reference Court enhanced the compensation for the land acquired from Rs.46,500/- per acre to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre together with 30% solatium on the enhanced market value and 12% additional market value from the date of taking possession. The reference Court also awarded interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced market value for the first oneyear  and at 15% per annum thereafter. So far as the fruit bearing trees are concerned, the reference Court declined to grant any enhancement and whatever compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was confirmed. 
Aggrieved by the said order of the reference Court dated 26.03.2010, A.P. Power Generation Company Ltd., preferred the present four appeals contending that the enhancement granted is exorbitant and without any basis. On behalf of the claimants-respondents, cross-objections have been filed claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre.
Out of the documents marked before the reference Court, the reference Court relied upon Ex.A.3, which is the market value certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar (Registrations), Kothagudem showing the market value of the land in Sy.No.68/1 and 69/1 ofSuraram village as well as Exs.A.4 and A.5-valuation certificates showing the market value of the land during the years 2004 and 2006.  It is relevant to note that Suraram village being an agency area, no registered sale deeds were available with regard to the sale transactions in the said village.  However, the claimants produced Exs.A-6-certified copy of registered sale deed dated 31.03.2005 and Ex.A-7-certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21.08.2006 related to the land situated in a different village, namely, Paloncha, stating that the land covered by the Exs.A.6 and A.7 sale deeds is situated only one kilo meter away from the acquired land.  
In the light of the valuation of the lands of Suraram village as reflected from Exs.A.3 to A.5, particularly in view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1.30,000/- per acre in respect of the land belonging to some of the claimants, who gave consent for acquisition, the reference Court held that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.46,500/- per acre was absolutely low and inadequate and accordingly thought it fit to award the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre together with all statutory benefits. 
However, it is contended by the respondents/cross objectors that though Exs.A.6 and A.7 sale transactions related to the land situated in a different village, namely Paloncha since it is situated only one kilo meter away from the acquired land, the reference Court ought to have taken the consideration under the said sale deeds as the basis for fixing the compensation.   
 It is to be noticed that under Ex.A.6 sale deed, a house plot admeasuring 365 square yards was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- on 31.03.2005 whereas, under Ex.A.7 sale deed, an extent of 260.66 square yards of house site was sold for Rs.2,67,000/- on 21.08.2006.  
The learned counsel for the respondents submits that on conversion of the said consideration into acreage basis, the market value would come to Rs.409.83 per square yard i.e. Rs. 19,83,577/- per acre and therefore the reference Court ought to have granted atleast Rs.5,00,000/- per acre after giving the necessary deductions towards developmental charges. 
In the light of the evidence available on record and reasons assigned by the reference Court, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the reference Court at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre is just and reasonable.   
Though in the cross objections filed by them the respondents claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre on the basis of Exs.A.6 and A.7, in view of the fact that the said house sites are situated in a different village, Paloncha, which is an industrial area, whereas the acquired land is situated in a tribal area, we are not inclined to rely upon the same for granting further enhancement.  In our considered opinion, the reference Court was justified in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.   Therefore, the interference by us is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. 
For the aforesaid reasons both the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed confirming the order under appeal passed bythe  reference Court. No order as to costs.
                                                                   ______________                                                                                          G. ROHINI,J.

______________________
 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.        
Date: 13-12-2012
Kmr/KLP

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.