REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. DASARI GANGA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land Acquisition Act on 1/12/1977, acquiring Acs. 1-35 cents in Rayalam village of Narsipatnam town for establishment of the bus-stand. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per acre. On reference, the Civil Court enhanced the market value at the rate of Rs.10.00 per square yard. As against the enhancement of the market value, the State has filed these appeals.

(2.) The contention of Sri Reddeppa Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, is that there are no written applications filed by the claimants pursuant to the notices u/Ss.9 and 10 of the Act. Therefore, they are not entitled to receive more than what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. I find no force in the contention. S. 9 of the Act provides that the Collector shall cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claim to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him and that such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice)," and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made u/S.8. S.25(1) of the Act provides that, "When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given u/S.9 the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector u/S. 11." A conjoint reading of the above mentioned sections of the Act provides that claimants shall state the amount and the particulars of their claims to compensation for their interests in the land and also objections, if any, for the measurements of the lands. The claim to compensation has not been provided with any specific procedure or the form under which the claim is to be made. It is now an admitted fact that preceding taking over possession, the claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and stated that the lands under acquisition could be used as house-sites and claimed the compensation at Rs.1,000.00percent. During the enquiry also, they reiterated their earlier stand. Thereby it is clear that they laid their claim for compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000.00per cent i.e., 1,00,000/- per acre. As stated earlier, the Land Acquisition Act does not postulate of making any claim in a particular form. Therefore, the oral claim made before the Land Acquisition Officer can also be taken as the claim made before him. Under those circumstances, the absence of a written application does not take away the right of claimants to lay compensation and the court is not precluded from enhancing the market value of the lands under acquisition.

(3.) It is next contended that the lower court has committed grievous error in treating the lands as fit for house sites when the lands are actually used for agricultural purposes and awarding market value on the yardage basis. I find no force in the contention. In the judgment of the court below, His pointed out that the land in question have got very suitability for the purpose of building houses and, therefore, to be used as house sites. At page 31 of the judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge observed as follows: "I am of the opinion that the land in question has got very suitability and it already attained building activity as there is already RTC Complex situated there itself and the acquired land in question is bounded by RTC Complex on one side, residential colony on the other side and also in immediate Cinema Hall on the side on Narsipatnam town and the High Way road from Narsipatnam to Anakapalli and Visakhapatnam on the other side. This is my information on my personal observations on local inspection in the presence of the learned Assistant Government Pleader as ilicalished (sic) by land in question with the aid of combined sketch which is marked as Ex.B.14." A reading thereof dearly postulates that the lands are possessed of potential value for use as house-sites and that they are bounded by R.T.C. complex on one side, residential colony on the other side and immediately adjacent to it there exists a cinema hall on the Narsipatnam town side. There is High Way road from Narsipatnam to Anakapalli and Visakhapatnam and the land is abutting the main National High Way road. Under those circumstances, the lands are even lands having potential value for use as house sites. Therefore, merely because the agricultural crops were being raised on lands, the treatment of the lands under acquisition as having potential value as house sites by the court below cannot be said to be illegal.