SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION YERRAGUNTLA Vs. K REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of appeals raise common questions of law and facts. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, the evidence in O.P. No. 274/82 (against which A.S. No. 397/85 arises) was recorded with consent of both parties and the judgment therein dated April 23, 1984 formed the basis for determination of the market value by the Court of all the lands under acquisition which were acquired for a public purpose.

(2.) The procedure provided in Part III of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894), for short, "the Act", foor the company was adopted in acquiring a total extent of Ac 2,058-23 cents in Chilamakur village and adjacent villages for establishment of the cement factory by M/s. Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd., Secunderabad. Notification under S.4(1) of the Act was published in regard to Reach No. XVI on July 13, 1981. The entire extent of land was divided into 59 reaches for the administrative convenience; the land bearing Survey Nos. 1293 to 1302, admeasuring about Ac 43-23 cents in Award No. 3/832 was acquired. Similar is the case with respect to other reaches. The Land Acquisition Officer determined market value between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per acre. On protest by the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the civil court under S.18(1) of the Act. The civil court enhanced the market value uniformly at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- more per acre with usual solatium and interest. Assailing the legality thereof, this bunch of appeals has been filed.

(3.) Sri Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the appellants raised four-fold contentions. The first contention is that the court below enhanced the market value at Rs. 2,000/ -more per acre on the ground that the lands are possessed of adaptability for exploitation of minerals; therefore that formed the basis. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value taking into account the potential value as commercial purpose viz., extraction of lime stone for manufacturing cement. The Court below, therefore, cannot use again as a part thereof adaptability as a separate item for enhancement of the market value. The next contention is that the claimants merely stated that they are the owners of the lands; they made no plea that they are owners of sub-soil rights and without any pleading or proof thereof the Court below is devoid of jurisdiction to go into that aspect. Thirdly it is contended that no separate claim in that regard as required under Section 9 read with Section 25(2) was made for mineral rights. Therefore, the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction in enhancing the market value on that ground. Lastly it is contended that there is no valid reference under Section 18; the claimants merely wrote a letter like Ex. A-3 stating that they protest for determination of the market value. They did not seek any specific reference under Section 18(1) nor furnish any particulars the basis for making reference in support thereof. Therefore, the Court cannot go into those questions as it is not a court of original jurisdiction but is a special Court under the Act. These contentions are resisted by Sarva Sri Sadasiva Reddy, V.L.N.G.K. Murthy and Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel for the claimants.