AHMED YAR JUNG Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Hyderabad acquired appellant's land measuring 18 acres 21 guntas in survey No. 116 situated within the Municipal limits of Hyderabad City under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 3 (1) of that Act corresponding to Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was issued on 26-10-1950. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/-per sq. yard but the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of O. S. Rs. 7,500/- per acre. At the request of the appellant a reference was made to the City Civil Court which enhanced the compensation to O. S. Rs. 4/- per sq. yard. The usual solatium of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% on the compensation from the date of taking possession of the land were also awarded. Against this judgment both the appellant as well as the State filed appeals, the appellant claiming compensation at Rs. 12/- per sq. yard. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the appeal of the appellant thus restoring the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. These two appeals have been filed against those two judgments on certificate granted by the High Court.

(2.) Mr. Suryaprakasam appearing on behalf of the appellant stated at the outset that he would be satisfied with the compensation awarded by the trial Court.

(3.) There is a curious lack of really useful evidence in this case. Of oral evidence there is plenty but it is not possible to place full reliance on them. The evidence of the sale by P. W. 1, the evidence of the so-called expert, P. W. 2, and the evidence of P. W. 3 are not of much use because all of them relate to sales of land far away from the land acquired. We are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of P. W. 5 about the offer which he made to purchase the appellant's land. He seems to have come forward to give evidence merely to oblige the appellant. The Commissioner's report as well as the plan (Exhibit No. 52) which we have scrutinised also make it clear that many sale deeds produced before the Trial Court relate to lands which were far away from the appellant's land. There were a number of factories, bungalows, schools near the acquired land. But that was in 1955. Admittedly the area known as Chikkedpally was not even developed in 1950. Nor do we find the inspection notes by the Judge of the City Civil Court very helpful.