LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KHAMMAM Vs. KATTA VENKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Land Acquisition Officer, Khammam, had acquired a total ex-tent of Ac. 6.00 cents of Khanapur village situated in the adjoining Survey Nos. 187/20, 187/2C, 184, 185, 186, 187 etc., through his notification published under S. 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act on 30-3-76. The lands are all contiguous and, axe adjacent to Kham-mam town within its immediate vicinity. They were acquired for the purpose of erecting an electric sub-station. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,600.00 per acre except in case of Ac. 4-04 cents of land situated in Survey Numbers 184, 185 and 186, where he awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,200.00 per acre. In addition to the above, he gave compensation for the mango and neem trees calculated on their capitalized value. The land owners were dissatisfied with ibis level of compensation and had the matter referred to Civil Court.

(2.) Before the Civil Court, the claimants claimed compensation on the basis that their lands were house sites. They had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10.00 pec sq. yard. However, the Civil Court had awarded them only Rs. 2.00 per sq. yard in addi-tion to compensation for the mango and neem trees. It is against this award the present appeals are filed.

(3.) It is now argued by Mr. Raja Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the order of enhancement made by the Civil Court increasing the compensation payable to the owners of the land is erroneous inasmuch as that order had ignored the rate of compensation paid to the owners of binds compulsorily acquired and situated just opposite to the present lands acquired. It appears, about Ac. 101-80 cents of land situated across the road opposite to the present acquired lands was acquired by the Government paying compensation of Ra. 3,172/- per acre only. The argument of the appellants is because those lands were near to these lands, the Civil Court should have relied upon those fates only. Whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation basing himself upon the award made in the above acquisition proceedings of Ac. 101-00, the Civil Court disregarding that award and relying upon a sale deed dated 24-1-74 of a far away land at one mile distance, enhanced the compensation. It is, therefore, argued that the Civil Court should have relied upon the acquisition proceedings evidenced by the award acquiring 101 acres. It is secondly argued that the Civil Court had erred in awarding compensation without reducing the rate at least by 1/3rd representing the land acquired for formation of roads and providing other amenities. Thirdly it it argued that following the judgment of the Madras High Court in State v. Alameluthayammal, AIR 1970 Mad 184, the Civil Court ought not to have granted compensation on the bash of capitalized value of the mango and neem trees, which ought to have been valued merely as charcoal.