B LAKSHMIKANTHA RAO Vs. L A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's lands were acquired for providing house sites to the Weaker Sections by the respondent under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short). An award was passed by the respondent, granting compensation of Rs. 13,423,50, including solatium and interest etc., for acquiring the lands of the appellant in an extent of Ac 1-09 guntas, situate in Lakshmidevipalli village. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed an application dated 25-2-85 (Ex. R. 1) under Section 18 of the Act and requested the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court, under Ex. R2. He raised the contention that the extent of the land acquired is more than Ac. 1-09 guntas and that the compensation paid is too low. The respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court, namely, Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem and the matter was numbered as OP No. 129/82.

(2.) Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellant filed a claim statement claiming that the Government acquired Ac. 1-18 guntas of land and that he is entitled to the payment of compensation for the said extent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard. The respondent filed a counter stating that an extent of Ac. 1-18 guntas of land was acquired and that the payment of compensation was reasonable. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the compensation payable is Rs. 12/- per sq. yard with solatium at 30%, and interest at 12%, and did not go into the question of extent of the land acquired.

(3.) Both the appellant, as well as the respondent filed appeals against the award of the learned Subordinate Judge, in this Court. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant contended that the Civil Court erred in not deciding the dispute relating to the extent of the land acquired and that the enhancement of compensation was not proper. It was the contention of the respondent that the enhancement of compensation was proper. The learned single Judge dismissed both the appeals, holding that the amount of compensation awarded by the Civil Court was proper and that no relief, with regard to the extent of the land, could be given, as the reference by the respondent relates to only Ac. 1.08 guntas of land and that in the absence of any specific reference regarding the extent of the land under Sec. 18 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the said question.