Land Acquisition Act when deduction of 1/3rd arise while fixing market value = The deduction of 1/3rd towards development charges merely on the ground that the beneficiary proposes to use the land for house sites and the Government may have to incur expenditure for the development of the same, is not correct. This is for the reason deduction of 1/3rd would be warranted only when the claim of land owners is based on square yard basis, in which case before they can offer the land for sale they are required to expend money and develop the land, and in that process there is an element of deduction in the saleable land and also expenditure involved in development. However, this is not the case where the land is being acquired on acreage basis by paying lump sum compensation on per acre basis. In the light of the above discussion, we reject the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there needs to be 1/3rd deduction considering the fact there is general spiralling of land prices, we feel it just and reasonable to fix the market value payable as Rs.75,000/- per acre.

published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10152
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM                

APPEAL SUIT No.361 OF 2002    

18-07-2013

Smt. Tangirala Radhakrishnamma...Appellant-Claimant

The Revenue Divisional Officer,Tenali, Guntur District  ...Respondent-
Referring Officer

Counsel for the appellant: Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu

Counsel for the respondent: Learned Government Pleader for Appeals

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:  Nil

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU    
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM          

APPEAL SUIT No.361 OF 2002    

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)  
       

This Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Claimant challenging the Common
Order and Decree dated 30.06.2000 of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Tenali, passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.13 and 14 of 1995.  The impugned Order and Decree
was passed on a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, (for short "the Act").

2) The appellant was the Claimant in L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1995 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Tenali.  The appellant was the owner of
Ac.5-25 cents of agriculture land in Sy.No.13/5-A of Godavarru Village, Tenali
Taluq, Guntur District.  An extent of Ac.5-01 cents was acquired by the
Government for providing house sites to weaker sections by issuing a
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 23.04.1992.  The Land
Acquisition Officer had determined the market value at the rate of Rs.41,000/-
per acre.  Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, on claimant's application matter was referred to Principal
Senior Civil Judge Court, Tenali and the case was numbered as L.A.O.P. No.13 of
1995.

3) On behalf of the claimants, the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 1995 was
examined as P.W.1 and the appellant, who was the claimant in L.A.O.P. No.13 of
1995, herself was examined as P.W.2 in addition to P.Ws.3 and 4, and Exs.A.1 and
A.2 were marked and by consent Ex.X.1 Proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Duggirala in R.C.No.380/91, dated 31.03.1994 was also marked.  On behalf of the
respondent-referring officer, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2
registered extracts of sale deeds dated 04.09.1991 were marked.

4) The learned Judge of the trial Court after elaborate enquiry had taken into
consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, had marked Ex.A.1 Registered Sale Deed,
dated 21.03.1986, under which P.W.1 had purchased an extent of Ac.0-50 cents for
a consideration of Rs.50,000/- per acre and also through Ex.A.2 Registered Sale
Deed, dated 30.04.1990, he purchased an extent of Ac.0-25 cents for a
consideration of Rs.25,000/-, which would work out to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.
It was elicited from R.W.2, who was examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition
Officer that the lands which were acquired are at a distance of 20 yards from
the road and they are abutting the village.  As per Ex.A.2 Registered Sale Deed,
dated 30.04.1990 there was a transaction of Rs.80,000/- per acre.  The learned
Judge of the trial Court had found, on appreciation of evidence, that the
transaction under Exs.A.1 and A.2 were genuine but discarded Ex.A.2 on the
ground that it is for a small extent of land i.e. Ac.0-25 cents.  Finally,
considering Ex.A.1 though learned Judge had rejected Ex.A.2 by adopting a
strange methodology taking the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre as value chose to
make a deduction of 1/3rd towards development and further deduction for the
purpose of raising the land on the ground, as the land that is proposed to be
acquired is in lower level to the road by 3 1/2 feet, and finally refused any
enhancement to the claimants.

5) If Ex.A.1 which is dated 21.03.1986 under which Ac.0-50 cents of land was
sold at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre and even an escalation of 10% in the
market value for each year, the market value can be arrived at Rs.73,000/- and
odd per acre.  The learned Government Pleader would contend minimum of 1/3rd has
to be deducted towards development of the land as the land being acquired for
the purpose of house sites.  On the face of it, the contention of the learned
Government Pleader would appear reasonable, but deduction of 1/3rd towards
development charges merely on the ground that the beneficiary proposes to use the land for house sites and the Government may have to incur expenditure for the development of the same, is not correct.  
This is for the reason deduction of 1/3rd would be warranted only when the claim of land owners is based on square yard basis, in which case before they can offer the land for sale they are required to expend money and develop the land, and in that process there is
an element of deduction in the saleable land and also expenditure involved in development.  
However, this is not the case where the land is being acquired on
acreage basis by paying lump sum compensation on per acre basis.  In the light of the above discussion, we reject the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there needs to be 1/3rd deduction considering the fact there is general spiralling of land prices, we feel it just and reasonable to fix the market value  payable as Rs.75,000/- per acre.

6) Accordingly, the order and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1995 is modified in
terms of the appeal.  It is needless to mention that the appellant would be
entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on solatium and additional
market value.

7) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.  No order as to costs.  The Registry
is directed to issue modified order and decree in terms of the judgment in
appeal.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand
dismissed.

______________
K.C.BHANU, J
____________________________    
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J      
Date:18-07-2013

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.