SRI SANKARA MATHALAYA VIDYA POSHAKA SANGHAM VIJAYAWADA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the first respondent in O.P. 254 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court Vijayawada which was a deference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act made by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Central Railway, Vijayawada, for determining the compensation payable to the claimants for their properly of an extent of Ac. 4-51 of land in R.S. No. 359/2A and 359/2C in Gollapudi village. The said property was acquired for providing additional Down Yard facilities for the railway junction at Vijayawada. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 17-2-1966. Even before the notification, possession was taken with (the consent of the owner on 1-11-1965. Notices under Section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act were served on the owner, and the enquiry was held between 1-6-66 and 4.6.66. The land is owned by a Society called Sankara Mathalaya Vidyaposhakasangham. It appears that the President of the Sangham submitted a petition on 4.6.66 for extention of time, for filing a statement. It is cot clear from the records whether the extention asked for was either granted or refused, but subsequently no claim statement was filed on behalf of the owner. The Land Acquisition Officer gave hit award on 16-3-67. He came to the conclusion that the proper compensation for the land acquired was Rs. 6,000/- per acre. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The appellant made an application dated 26-4-67 requesting that the matter may be referred to the court for adjudication. Accordingly, a reference was made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub-Court, Vijayawada. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the appellant as well as the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Rs. 10,000/- per acre was a just and reasonable compensation for the lands under acquisition. He however, took the view that appellant had not filed any claim before the Land Acquisition officer, the court was precluded from granting any compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by reason of the of Provisions of Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. He, therefore, held that the claimant was not entitled to the enhanced compensation which was found by him to be just and reasonable for the lands acquired. In the result, he held that the claimant was entitled only to the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(3.) The appellant has preferred the above appeal against the judgment and award of the learned Subordinate Judge.