Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
K. Krishna Reddy and others, Appellants
Versus
The Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, A.P., Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3159-3170 of 1988, D/- 8-9-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdhary and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. P. A. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. Sunita Rao, Mr. Badrinath and Mr. K. Ramkumar, Advocates with him, for Respondent.
Lower Manair Dam Reservoir Project – Land Acquisition – Section 4(1) – Appeals are from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings – Lands in question are situated – lands are acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam Reservoir Project – Section 4(1) notification was issued land acquisition officer by his award awarded compensation ranging from per acre depending upon the nature of the land and the crop grown thereon – High Court by the judgment under appeals herein has remanded the matter for fresh disposal with liberty for both parties to adduce additional evidence – High Court has specifically observed that the District Judge should exclude consideration are the awards pertaining to acquisition of certain lands situated in Karimnagar Thereunder, compensation at the rate of per acre were given –Held, It seems to us that this is not a case of no evidence – This is a case of both relevant and irrelevant evidence mixed up together – Court must exclude the irrelevant and exaggerated claim – Claimants have not justified the award generously given by the District Judge per acre appears to be on the high side as against the award – In the first place, Section 4 notification concerned in that Award – It was almost a year after the notification in these cases. Secondly, the lands therein were close to the town of Karimnagar – situation is not similar in this case – Here the lands are 3 kms away from Karimnagar town – It is in this background we have carefully considered the rough estimates given by counsel on both sides – Court have also examined the relevant material – Distance of 3 kms from a growing town of District headquarters should not, however, make a world of difference –Court are of opinion that the compensation at the rate of acre regardless of categorisation would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice – It is needless to state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory solatium at 30 per cent and also statutory interest – Appeals allowed.
Judgment
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. :- We grant Special leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals.
2. These appeals are from a judgment dated 30 December, 1985 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The lands in question are situated in Hasanapur of Karimnagar Taluk. The lands are acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam Reservoir Project. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 24 March, 1977. The land acquisition officer by his award dated 15 July, 1978 awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 1320 to 4000 per acre depending upon the nature of the land and the crop grown thereon. The District Judge on a reference under S. 18 of the Act enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000/- per acre regardless of categorisation. The High Court by the judgment under appeals herein has remanded the matter for fresh disposal with liberty for both parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court has specifically observed that the District Judge should exclude Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5 from consideration. Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5 are the awards pertaining to acquisition of certain lands situated in Karimnagar. Thereunder, compensation at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per acre under Ex. A. 4 and Rs. 70,000 under Ex. A. 5 were given. The High Court has observed that the lands concerned in those awards are not comparable lands.
3. Hence these appeals.
4. The first question that arises for consideration is whether Ex. A. 5 should be altogether excluded or it should be kept open for being considered by the District Judge on merits. This is the specific question on which this Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petition. If first part of the question is answered in the negative, then the second question for consideration is whether the matter should go back to District Judge for fresh disposal.
5. We heard counsel on both sides on the merits of the entire matter.
6. The claimants have alleged that the lands acquired are fit for residential houses as they are adjacent to industrial estate, MARKFED Factory, Vanaspathi complex, dairy farm and Padmanagar colony. The lands have potentiality of being used as house sites and the like of which was sold for Rs. 5000/- per gunta prior to the present acquisition. The lands are near to Karimnagar town. The town is developing into a modern town in Andhra Pradesh, with a lot of industrial, commercial, educational activities. They have claimed compensation at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre for dry lands and a little more for wet lands.
7. The evidence in support of their claim consists of the testimony of one of the claimants (PW 1). He has given a rosy picture of the location and value of the lands. Another witness (PW 2) has corroborated the version of PW 1. Besides we have the evidence of a Commissioner. Mr. G. Santosh Reddy Advocate was appointed as Commissioner in this case. He has filed his report Ex. A. 7 and Plan Ex. A. 8.
8. The High Court appears to have brushed aside all that evidence. The High Court compared the combined map of Karimnagar and Hansnapur village (Ex. A. 3) with the sketch map (Ex. A. 8) prepared by the Commissioner. The High Court was of opinion that the lands concerned in Ex. A. 5 are abutting Karimnagar town. They are close to MARKFED and other industrial institutions and buildings, but not the lands in question. The High Court said : "whereas admittedly the lands in question are 3 kms, from Karimnagar town". This statement has been seriously disputed before us. It is said that the claimants or their counsel did not admit, and indeed could not have made that admission suicidal to their case.
9. Be that as it may. the distance determined by the High Court whether on admission or by comparison of village maps makes little difference. The distance from Karimnagar town should not be a ground to reject Ex. A. 5. If the lands are suitable for house sites, Ex. A. 5 would still be relevant. The location of lands will have to he bo
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
