DT COLLECTOR KRISHNA Vs. Y V RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge directing the second respondent in the writ petition to pass a supplemental award within three months from the date of receipt of the order fixing the market value of the land acquired from the writ petitioners as on 1st August, 1997 and pay compensation to the writ petitioners accordingly together with all statutory benefits like solatium, additional compensation and interest. The learned single Judge followed the decision of another learned single Judge reported in M. Hanumanna vs. District Collector, Anantapur having more or less similar directions contained therein. Due reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Raj Kumar Johri wherein the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in paragraph 4 of the report as under:

(2.) Incidentally, be itnoted thatasagainst the mandatory order of the learned single judge to pass a supplemental award within a specified date, fixing the market value of the land as on 1st August, 1997, the State Government preferred this appeal inter alia contending that question of passing any supplemental award in the matter does not and cannot arise and in any event the mandatory direction as contained therein is otherwise not tenable in accordance with the provisions of law. The record depicts that the appellate Court, however, directed payment of the compensation on the basis of the admitted rate, namely, Rs. 101/- per square yard as was assessed earlier. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, passed an award recording therein the valuation in the manner indicated below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_270_ALT6_1998Html1.htm</FRM> It, therefore, appears that whereas there is an obligation to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 101/- per square yard, the State - Respondent has chosen to have the property valued and as has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal, the valuation has been submitted to the authority concerned with a request to pay the compensation in terms of the valuation within the shortest possible time. The learned Advocate for the State, in support of the appeal, also contended that, as a matter fact, additional market value at the rate of 12% has already been taken note of along with 30 per cent solatium and the statutory interest amounting to quite a substantial amount of money and question of there being any grievance so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned does not and cannot arise.

(3.) Mr. Manohar, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners, however, contended that, as a matter of fact, the writ petitioners are small plot holders. He submits that they were assured of alternative sites which have not been effected as yet and it is only recently that the inability to make over alternative sites has surfaced. He contended that the land value assessed at Rs. 101 /- per square yard on the basis of the market value of the year 1987 is utterly wrong and irregular and cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, he submits, the law as declared by the Supreme Court as regards assessment of the quantum of compensation has not been followed at all in the contextual facts of the matter under consideration.