KONDIBA Vs. SPL DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This land acquisition appeal is preferred by the claimants, 34 in number, who are aggrieved by the decree and judgment, dated 30.07.2004 passed in O.P. No. 2 of 2001 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. The said OP has arisen out of a reference made by the Special Deputy Collector, SRSP, Pochampad, on the application of the claimants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'). Shorn of extraneous details, the facts in brief are as follows: The Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act with an intention to acquire lands to an extent of Acs. 62-21 gts., spreading across various survey numbers in Kollur and Masalga Villages, Thanur Mandal, Adilabad District, for the purpose of formation of stilt arrest tank. Given the urgency, the possession, however, was taken on 10.02.1998, that is about live months prior to the date of notification. Though the extent is seemingly large, the land actually belongs to 34 claimants, who owned only small extents, averaging about less than 2 acres.

(2.) In course of time, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per acre; but later, on application of the claimants under Section 18 of the Act, the L.A.O. referred the matter to reference court, i.e., the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nirmal. Eventually, the reference court answered the reference by enhancing the rate of the acquired land to Rs. 32,000/- per acre, which is a marginal increase of Rs. 7,000/- over the value fixed by the L.A.O. The claimants, who initially claimed Rs. 52,000/- per acre, filed the present appeal, as they were aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the reference court.

(3.) At the bar, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation fixed both by the L.A.O. and by the reference court is woefully inadequate, since many relevant factors that have gone into determining the market value have not been taken into account. He stressed heavily on exhibit B.1 and submitted that its exclusion is unjustified, resulting in perversity. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has urged that the market value of the land as revised by the reference court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He has also urged that, exhibit A.1, which was rightly relied on by the reference court, comprises many other sale transactions, and after averaging out all the sale transactions, the reference court has taken an equitable view as to the market value of the lands acquired by the government.