1993 Supreme(AP) 225

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO, G.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO
P.Ram Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer, hyderabad Urban Development - Respondent
Decided On : 04-19-93

The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and correct if it is based on reliable evidence and takes into account all relevant factors, such as the market value of the land, the solatium, and the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:

The court held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and correct. The court found that the comparable sales relied upon by the claimant were not reliable as they were for small extents of land and were not situated in the same area as the acquired land. The court also found that the basic value register could not be relied upon as it was not prepared on any scientific data and was only used for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. The court held that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for severance as the acquisition of the land did not cause any damage to the claimant's remaining land. The court also held that the deduction of 40% for lay out losses made by the Land Acquisition Officer was on the high side and that a deduction of 20% would be reasonable. The court awarded the claimant compensation at the rate of Rs. 32/- per square yard, which was double the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The court also awarded the claimant 30% solatium on the market value, 12% additional amount on the market value from the date of notification till the date of award, and interest as per the provisions of the amended Act.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant, P. Ram Reddy, owned 4 acres 3 guntas of land in Katedan Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The land was acquired by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for the purpose of formation of an inner ring road. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square yard. The claimant filed an appeal with the Subordinate Judge, who enhanced the compensation to Rs. 80/- per square yard. Both HUDA and the claimant filed appeals with the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and correct. The court found that the comparable sales relied upon by the claimant were not reliable as they were for small extents of land and were not situated in the same area as the acquired land. The court also found that the basic value register could not be relied upon as it was not prepared on any scientific data and was only used for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. The court held that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for severance as the acquisition of the land did not cause any damage to the claimant's remaining land. The court also held that the deduction of 40% for lay out losses made by the Land Acquisition Officer was on the high side and that a deduction of 20% would be reasonable. The court awarded the claimant compensation at the rate of Rs. 32/- per square yard, which was double the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The court also awarded the claimant 30% solatium on the market value, 12% additional amount on the market value from the date of notification till the date of award, and interest as per the provisions of the amended Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the comparable sales relied upon by the claimant were reliable. 2. Whether the basic value register could be relied upon. 3. Whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation for severance. 4. Whether the deduction of 40% for lay out losses made by the Land Acquisition Officer was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The comparable sales relied upon by the claimant were not reliable as they were for small extents of land and were not situated in the same area as the acquired land. 2. The basic value register could not be relied upon as it was not prepared on any scientific data and was only used for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. 3. The claimant was not entitled to any compensation for severance as the acquisition of the land did not cause any damage to the claimant's remaining land. 4. The deduction of 40% for lay out losses made by the Land Acquisition Officer was on the high side and that a deduction of 20% would be reasonable.

Final Decision: The High Court held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and correct. The court awarded the claimant compensation at the rate of Rs. 32/- per square yard, which was double the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The court also awarded the claimant 30% solatium on the market value, 12% additional amount on the market value from the date of notification till the date of award, and interest as per the provisions of the amended Act.