Back
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector – Appellant
Versus
Jupalli Damodar Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramagundam, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed in O.P.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’).
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands to an extent of Acs.13.20 ½ guntas situated in the limits of Garrepalli Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired for laying of Pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 07.05.2010; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, dated 20.05.2011, granting compensation @ Rs.86,000/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.96,
The highest prevailing market value should be used to determine compensation for acquired lands, rejecting undervalued assessments by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The court upheld the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation for acquired lands, affirming the reliance on sale deeds and evidence as just and reasonable.
The court established that compensation for acquired land must reflect genuine market transactions and account for severance, while emphasizing the need for evidence in claims for additional compensa....
Claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land and structures when capitalization is not applied, ensuring just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
The court upheld the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, affirming that the Reference Court properly evaluated the evidence and did not err in its decision.
The court upheld the principle of uniform compensation for acquired lands of similar nature and purpose, emphasizing the need to avoid discrimination in compensation assessments.
The burden of proof lies with claimants to establish a higher market value than that fixed by the Reference Court, which was upheld as reasonable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
