HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.2649 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.41 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that originally he is the owner and possessor of Ac.02-00 guntas of land in survey No.1132 at Damaracherla village, out of which the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) – defendant No.3 has acquired Ac.0-29½ guntas of land, for the formation and construction of broadguage railway line from Bibinagar to Nadikudi vide draft notification No.G.O.Rt.No.736/T.R & B, dated 25.07.1986 and it was issued in Gazette on 31.03.1987. His grievance is that the Government has paid him only to an extent of Ac.0-11 guntas in spite of the entire extent of Ac.0-29½ guntas. Though he represented to the Government about the balance of compensation to be paid, the Government failed to consider the same. Thus, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice and that the RDO has replied to the said notice accepting the fact but denied the entitlement of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property to an extent of Ac.0-18 ½ guntas of land. Thus, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the grievance sell of the Chief Minister’s Peshi, in spite of which, he has not received any response. His contention is that in recent time, the land value has abnormally increased and that in view of over bridge on Krishna River being constructed, the land has acquired much more value and in view of the same, he is valuing the suit land @ Rs.5,000/- per gunta and thus, claimed that he is entitled to Rs.92,500/- for balance of Ac.0-18 ½ guntas and thus, has filed the suit before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Miryalguda.

4. The defendants have filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff. They admitted that they have acquired land along with the other lands for formation of broadguage railway line but they contended that the land acquired was only Ac.0-11 guntas and not Ac.0-29 ½ guntas as alleged by the plaintiff. They further contended that the amount granted by the Government is justified and that the plaintiff’s contention about recent development and the hike in price cannot be accepted. Therefore, they denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money towards the Land Compensation by way of damages, as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 30% solatium on the suit amount?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?”

6. The said issues are re-framed for the purpose of convenience:

“1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money towards land compensation by way of damages as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 30% solatium on suit amount?

4. To what relief?”

7. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Ex.C1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac.0-17½ guntas @Rs.5,000/- per gunta along with the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants i.e the District Collector, Government of A.P, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer.

9. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Sri S.Lakshma Reddy,