Kambalapalli Village of Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal = As could be seen from the fresh order passed by the reference Court dated 13.07.2006 (marked as Ex.A.5), the compensation was enhanced from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre for category-I and category-II lands respectively on the basis of Ex.A3, which is a certified copy of the judgment in A.S.No.80 of 1994, dated 15.10.1996 relating to the adjacent village, which was also acquired for the same purpose.- Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Court below is hereby enhanced for category-I lands from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre and for category-II lands from Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre. It is also made clear that the appellants are entitled to other statutory benefits as provided under law.


THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
And
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

APPEAL SUIT Nos.431, 667, 669, 696, 697, 733,
734, 735, 1070 and1118 of 2002
And
L.A.A.S.Nos.337, 354, 356, 357, 377 and 389 of 2012

Dated: 20.12.2012

In A.S. No.431 of 2002


Between:

Telegu Laxmamma
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector/LAO
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.667 of 2002


Between:

Mangati Venkata Ramana
                                                                      ..                Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector/LAO
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.669 of 2002


Between:

Y.Linga Reddy and others
                                                                      ..                 Appellants

And

The Special Deputy Collector/LAO
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.696 of 2002


Between:

Telugu Ramudu
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector/LAO                         ..                    Respondent

In A.S. No.697 of 2002


Between:

Ramapuram Naganna
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.733 of 2002


Between:

Chelimella Pullanna
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.734 of 2002


Between:

Golla Swamanna
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.735 of 2002


Between:

Alaganur Yesanna
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In A.S. No.1070 of 2002


Between:

Subbamma
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

 

In A.S. No.1118 of 2002


Between:

Tigireddy Ramakrishna Reddy
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In L.A.A.S. No.337 of 2012


Between:

Choppala Sangeetha Rao
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In L.A.A.S. No.354 of 2012


Between:

Tammineni Chakrapani
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In L.A.A.S. No.356 of 2012


Between:

Chakali Palle Nagendrudu
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In L.A.A.S. No.357 of 2012


Between:

Harijana Chandranna
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In L.A.A.S. No.377 of 2012


Between:

Tammineni Ambanna
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

In L.A.A.S. No.389 of 2012


Between:

Hazarath Ali
                                                                      ..                 Appellant

And

The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
                                                ..                Respondent

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
And
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

APPEAL SUIT Nos.431, 667, 669, 696, 697, 733,
734, 735, 1070 and1118 of 2002
And
L.A.A.S.Nos.337, 354, 356, 357,377 and 389 of 2012

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

          All the 16 appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) against a common order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Atmakur, dated 23.03.1995 in a batch of O.Ps. taken on file on a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants in O.P.Nos.1151,1163,1211, 4186, 1122,4169,1114,1152,1346,4135,1110,4177,1162,4179,4178 and 1123 of 1987 are the appellants before us.
          We have heard Sri V.Manohar Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals as well as the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent.
          As could be seen from the material available on record, a large extent of Ac.82.90 cents situated in Kambalapalli Village of Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC) from 11.500 Km to 12.500 Km vide notification dated 22.12.1984 published under Section 4(1) of the Act.  After due enquiry, the land acquisition officer passed award No.12 of 1985, dated 20.09.1985, fixing Rs.11,030/- per acre for wet lands which are categorized as category-I lands and Rs.7,547/- for category-II lands i.e., dry lands irrigated with K.C.Canal and Rs.7,000/- for category-III lands i.e., developed dry lands.  Similarly, for category-IV lands, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre.
          Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded, the appellants herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.  In pursuance thereof the Sub-Court, Atmakur having taken up the reference decided all the O.Ps. along with a batch of O.Ps. filed by similarly situated claimants and by order dated 23.03.1995 enhanced the compensation for category-I lands from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.16,545/-, for category-II lands from Rs.7,547/- to Rs.11,320/-, for category-III lands from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,500/- and for category IV lands from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/-.
          As against the said common order dated 23.03.1995 several appeals came to be filed by the claimants.  A batch of such appeals being A.S.No.1377 of 2000 and batch, was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 22.08.2005 holding that the reference Court had failed to properly appreciate the documents marked on behalf of the claimants.  Accordingly, the order of the reference Court, dated 23.03.1995 was set aside so far as the appellants therein were concerned and the matter was remanded to the reference Court for fresh disposal.
          In pursuance of the said judgment of this Court, the matter was considered by the reference Court afresh and both the parties had adduced evidence to substantiate their respective claims.  On appreciation of the evidence so adduced, the reference Court passed a fresh order dated 13.07.2006 in O.P.No.4290 of 1987 and batch thereby enhancing the market value fixed by the land acquisition officer for category-I lands from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre.  Similarly, for category-II lands, the market value was enhanced from Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre.
          A copy of the said judgment passed by the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Atmakur, dated 13.07.2006 in O.P.No.4290 of 1987 and batch has been filed before this Court by way of additional evidence and the same has been admitted and marked as Ex.A.5 by a separate order passed today in LAAS.M.P.No.1639 of 2012. 
As could be seen from the fresh order passed by the reference Court dated 13.07.2006 (marked as Ex.A.5), the compensation was enhanced from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre for category-I and category-II lands respectively on the basis of Ex.A3, which is a certified copy of the judgment in A.S.No.80 of 1994, dated 15.10.1996 relating to the adjacent village, which was also acquired for the same purpose.
          Having carefully gone through the order passed by the reference Court dated 13.07.2006, we are of the opinion that the enhancement granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.  It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the reference Court dated 13.07.2006 has become final and the land acquisition officer did not choose to prefer any appeal against the said order.  The said fact has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.  In the facts and circumstances noticed above, we deem it appropriate to grant the same enhancement to the appellants before us. 
          Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Court below is hereby enhanced for category-I lands from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre and for category-II lands from Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre.  It is also made clear that the appellants are entitled to other statutory benefits as provided under law.
          All the Appeals are accordingly partly allowed.  No costs.  Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in all the Appeals are closed.
                           ___________

G. ROHINI, J


___________________
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 20.12.2012
Ivd/ssv/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.

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.

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