BAYYA JANAKI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR ANAKAPALLI VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment passed in AS No.2923 of 1996 dated 30-12-1998.

(2.) It is well settled that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case or an appeal. The finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has crept in the judgment rendered earlier. The interference of the Court is warranted only when there is error apparent on the face of the record which requires correction or modification failing which it causes grave injustice to the party. In a similar situation the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 held as follows :

(3.) Before considering the request made by the petitioner to review our earlier order it is proper to note a few facts which gave rise to the filing of AS No.2923 of 1996 before this Court by the State. The land in extent of Ac.18.39 cents situated at Venkannapalem, Makavarapalem Mandal of Visakhapatnam District covered by S. Nos.25/2, 26/2, 26/4, 26/5, 26/6, 26/7, 31/ 16, 31/28 and 31/3A was acquired by the Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for short 'the Act', for the formation of Yeleru Left Main Canal. Section 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 5-8-1981. The Land Acquisition after considering the claims of the claimant passed an award on 24-6-1983 awarding a sum of Rs.16,965.00 per acre in respect of Ac.3.84 cents wherein there is a coconut tope by adopting capitalisation method and awarding Rs.1,615.00 and Rs.1,515.00 per acre for the rest of the land which were classified into two categories. He also awarded compensation for fruit yielding coconut tree at Rs.40.00, coconut plant not yielding any fruits at Rs.5.00, big palmyrah tree at Rs.8.00, medium palmyrah tree at Rs.6.00 and small palmyrah tree at Rs.4.00. He further awarded Rs.5,457.00 for ground well and Rs.950.00 for motor shed and a sum of Rs.88,303.25 ps. towards land value and under the head 'buildings, wells, crops etc.' a sum of Rs.7,579.00 was awarded. After calculating solatium at 30% and interest at 45% and deducting income tax, the total compensation awarded to the claimant is Rs.1,13,241.74 ps. Aggrieved by the said award the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. The grounds urged before the Reference Court are that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is Contrary to law; the market value fixed for the lands and tope is too low and the compensation for the wet lands ought to have been granted at Rs.40,000.00 per acre; the compensation ought not to have been fixed on the basis of the statistics of sales taken behind the back of the claimant; the LAO ought to have taken into consideration as to what price the willing purchaser could have given since there were offers for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.40,000.00 per acre during the relevant time; the lands ought to have been treated as wet lands; the LAO erred in discording the sale-deeds mentioned at items 1, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 14 and holding that land covered by item No.9 is nearer to the Venkannapalem village and accepting the sale-deed without examining the parties connected with the documents; the lands covered by S. No.26/2 ought to have been treated as grazing lands and compensation ought to have been granted at the rate of Rs.1,550.00 per acre; the LAO ought to have taken the opinion of an expert for valuing the coconut tope and other trees and ought not to have prepared his report on the basis of the enquiry made by his predecessor; the calculation that one tree in the tope in an average yields 66 coconuts is incorrect as the coconuts of each tree are picked in three seasons and in each season 20 to 25 coconuts are plucked and therefore the valuation arrived at that the net income for the tope per year after deducting the cultivation expenses is Rs.4,653.37 ps. is incorrect; adoption of capitalisation method for 14 years is a mistake and instead compensation for each fruit bearing coconut tree ought to have been granted at Rs.3,000.00, for each palmyrah tree at Rs.500.00, and for ground well at Rs.12,000.00; the compensation for the loss sustained in respect of the land because of severance and the remaining land by digging the canal ought to have been at Rs.30,000.00; and interest should have been granted at 15%.