L A O Vs. R RAJU BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals filed by the State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act are directed against the Award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram in O.P. Nos.102 and 107 of 1988. These two O.Ps. along with nine other O.Ps. (i.e., 102 to 112 of 1988) were disposed of by a common judgment on 27-3-1995. The impugned Awards are examples of common pattern adopted by the then Subordinate Judge, Anakapalle (who is presently under suspension and facing disciplinary and criminal proceedings) to inflate the compensation to the maximum extent possible in absolute disregard of the facts, evidence and material on record and in distortion of the legal principles governing the determination of compensation. In a batch of appeals relating to acquisition for the same purpose at about the same time which were disposed of recently, we observed as follows:

(2.) The situation is no better here and we are constrained to conclude that by any objective standard, the determination of compensation ought to be characterised as arbitrary, not reflecting a genuine estimate.

(3.) The brief facts are these: Ac.0.35 cents of dry land in S.Nos.23, 26 and 27 of Annavaram village belonging to respondent in A.S. No.230 of 1997 and Ac.0.23 cents of dry land in S.Nos.23 and 27 of the same village belonging to respondent in A.S. No.174 of 1998 were acquired along with the contiguous lands in the year 1981 for the purpose of formation of Yeleru left main canal. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 3-8-1981 and an errata was published on 11-1-1982. The possession of lands was taken on 25-2-1981. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the Award No.12 of 1983 under Section 11 of the Act on 25-2-1983. Based on a sale deed of 1979, he fixed the market value at Rs.3,061/- per acre. As regards the lands in S.Nos.23, 26 and 27 with which we are concerned the Land Acquisition Officer specifically stated that paddy crop was being raised with the aid of a private water tank. He also observed that there was no wet cultivation. Moreover, he specifically mentioned that there were no trees, structures over these lands as per the statements given by the claimants. The statements recorded by the LAO at the time of Award enquiry form part of reference record.