MANNAM YESURATNAM Vs. CHALAMALSETTY BHARATHIDEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant Nos. 3 and 4 in Original Petition No. 49 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada preferred the present appeal challenging the order and decretal order dated 29.3.1996 with regard to apportionment of compensation in the Reference under Sec. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"). During pendency of the appeal, as claimant No.3 died, his legal heirs came on record as appellant Nos. 5 and 6 vide order dated 8.12.2008 in A.S.M.P. No. 2613 of 2008.

(2.) The appellants are the legal heirs of claimant Nos. 1 and 2 whose land was acquired under the Act to an extent of Ac.5.26 cents in R.S.No.34/2 of Payakapuram Village for rehabilitation of canal berm encroachers of Vijayawada Town. The claimants made rival claims before the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) and due to rival claim to receive compensation between claimant Nos. 1 and 2, the L.A.O. referred the matter under Sec. 30(2) of the Act to the Civil Court while depositing Rs.1,17,743.85 ps. payable under the Award.

(3.) Claimant Nos.3 to 5 filed their claim statement alleging that the notification is vitiated by illegality and is not according to the law and rules. The compensation was fixed at Rs.11,000.00 per acre by the Referring Officer and deposited Rs.1,17,743.85 ps. It is too low. In 1983 itself, the price of the land was Rs.1,18,000.00 per acre and it raised to Rs.3,00,000.00 per acre and the same was represented to the L.A.O. during Award Enquiry, but the L.A.O. did not consider the same.