LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAIFABAD Vs. MADHUKAR RAMBHAV BHASKARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal Suit No.2413 of 1993 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer; while Appeal Suit No.935 of 1994 is filed by the claimants.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Officer, Asifabad, issued a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', on 13-1-1975 and a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 9-12-1976 to acquire Ac.9-06 guntas of land situated in Survey Nos.75, 76, 83, 84 and 85 within the Municipal limits of Kagaznagar, but he failed to pass the award about a decade. Thereupon, the claimants filed Writ Petition No.3290 of 1986 before this Court for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to quash the earlier proceeding and to issue acquisition proceedings afresh. The High Court accordingly directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award, but nothing happened. Thereafter, claimants moved contempt proceedings in the High Court against the Land Acquisition Officer in C.C.No.156 of 1988, wherein a direction was given to the Land Acquisition Officer by this Court to finalise the award proceedings and pay compensation to the claimants within four months. Then the Land Acquisition Officer issued a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Acton 13-2-1989 and passed the award on 1-8-1989 with God speed. He accordingly * awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per acre. Of course, it is the complaint of the claimants that the Land Acquisition Officer with a view to spite the claimants, since they have resorted to contempt proceedings, has passed the award for a niggardly sum against the said award, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the same was tried as OP.No.19 of 1990 by the learned Subordinate Judge Asifabad. He held that the market value of the land is not less than Rs.3-00 lakhs per acre. He, however, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2-00 lakhs per acre. Against the said decree and judgment, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred Appeal Suit No.2413 of 1993 and the claimants preferred Appeal Suit No.935 of 1994.

(3.) On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer PW1 was examined and the award was marked. On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.Bl to B7 of which Exs.Bl to B6 are sale deeds. RWs land 2 are the claimants; while R.Ws 3 and 4 are parties to Exs.Bl and B3 sale deeds. As already stated Ex.B1 to B6 are the sale deeds between third parties and Ex,B7 is a sketch showing the location of the land.