Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Gonemoni Achamma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 40989 of 2017
Decided On : 19-06-2018
For the Petitioner:M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, Advocate
For the Respondent: G.P. for Revenue (TG)
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 18-Acquisition of land-Payment of compensation- For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. (Para 28)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District (4th respondent) in proceedings Ref. No.D/727/2011 dt.06-04-2017 fixing exgratia for the land of the petitioners, which was acquired for expansion of Hardware Park in Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Petitioners were granted D.Form pattas for various extents of land in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the State of Telangana between 1993 to 1995. They were also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. They claim to have developed the land and brought it under cultivation by raising different varieties of crops.
3. While so, a show cause notice dt.05-09-2009 was issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal (5th respondent) to the petitioners stating that the then State Government decided to resume the land under G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assignment. I) Department dt.23-12-1993 by paying ex-gratia and requested them to file objections.
4. Petitioners filed such objections through a reply dt.15-09-2009 issued through their counsel.
5. When respondents attempted to dispossess the petitioners from the land without paying compensation, they filed W.P.No.22658 of 2009 before this Court.
6. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23-10-2009 directing the Tahsildar to consider the reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notice issued by him and forward the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District for taking appropriate decision in that regard within four weeks.
7. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division issued proceedings No.D/727/2008 on 24-11-2009 fixing the exgratia of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for lands of each of the petitioners.
8. Petitioners questioned the same in W.P.No.14271 of 2010 after receiving the amount offered by respondents under protest.
9. In June, 2010 possession of the petitioners was taken and the same was handed over to the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, predecessor of the Telangana State Industrial infrastructure Corporation (6th respondent).
10. Petitioners contended in the said Writ Petition that 6th respondent executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of one M/s. Pragati Pack (India) Private Limited for an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village through a registered document on 29-06-2011 at Rs.69,81,075/- per acre and this itself indicates that the rate offered to petitioners was meagre.
11. W.P.No.14271 of 2010 was allowed on 07-03-2011 setting aside the order dt.24-11-2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District and he was directed to determine the ex-gratia payable to the petitioners in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1307 dt.23-12-1993 within three months.
C.C.No.1481 of 2011
12. This direction was not complied by respondents and so petitioners filed C.C.No.1481 of 2011.
13. The 4th respondent then issued a notice on 07-12-2011 to the petitioners to attend an enquiry on 15-12-2011 for fixing the exgratia to the petitioners’ lands.
14. Petitioners filed written submission claiming compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- and 30% solatium.
15. However, the 4th respondent issued proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.12-04-2012 fixing exgratia at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre.
W.P.No.28096 of 2012
16. Petitioners then filed W.P.No.28096 of 2012 questioning the proceedings Roc.No.D/727/2011 dt.12-04-2012 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District contending that even this amount is meager and does not reflect the correct market value.
17. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23-12-2015 holding that the award of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre to the petitioners is on the lower side and a direction was given to pay compensation at Rs.26,50,000/- per acre + 30% solatium thereon.
W.A.Nos.1353 of 2016 and 959 of 2016
18. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed W.A.Nos.1353 of 2016 and
