LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. BANTU CHINNA VEERAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short the Board) intended to bring about a Colony in Nizamabad Town. An extent of Acs.67.00 of land, owned by the respondents, in various survey numbers of Kanteshwar Revenue Village abutting Nizamabad city was identified for that purpose. On the requisition made by the Board, the Government published notification, dated 24.10.1989, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) proposing to acquire the land, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published and advance possession was taken on 23.01.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant herein, passed an award on 16.12.1991 fixing the market value at Rs.1,38,000/- per acre. A sum of Rs.29,964/- was awarded as compensation for the wells that were existing in the land. Not satisfied with the award passed by the appellant, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant acceded to the request and referred the matter to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and it was taken up as O.P.No.17 of 1997. Through its order, dated 27.04.2006, the trial Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.188/- per square yard. The same is challenged by the appellant in LAAS No.126 of 2007. The respondents herein, on the other hand, filed Cross-Objections (SR) No.10996 of 2008 for enhancement of the market value to Rs.268/- per square yard.

(2.) Learned Advocate General for the appellant submits that the enhancement ordered by the trial Court is totally out of proportion and without any basis. He contends that as against Rs.1,38,000/- per acre awarded by the appellant, the trial Court fixed the market value at Rs.9,09,920/- per acre. He submits that the basis for the trial Court to enhance the market value is Exs.A1 and A2, and both the sale deeds came into existence in anticipation of the acquisition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Kanteshwar is a locality which became part of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation by the time the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published and that there was no basis for the appellant to fix the market value at Rs.1,38,000/- per acre. He contends that even from a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it is evident that the appellant himself submitted proposals indicating the market value at Rs.3,87,200/- per acre, whereas it was slashed down to Rs.1,38,000/- by the District Collector. He submits that the market value as per Exs.A1 and A2 works out to Rs.400/- per square yard and the deduction to the extent of 53% was made by the trial Court. He contends that in the recent past, the Honble Supreme Court in Sanath Kumar Vs. Special Tahsildar held that deduction cannot exceed 40% under any circumstances and in that view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and the Cross- Objections deserve to be ordered.