SMT. GOWRAMMA ETC. versus LAO-CUM-MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER PARTI RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 22-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

it 
SMT. GOWRAMMA ETC. 
v. 
LAO-CUM-MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER PARTI 
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT 
MARCH 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Ac4 1894 : 
A 
B 
S.4, 6, 23(1A), 23(2), 28-Acquisition of Land-Possession of land C 
taken on 5.6.1986-Award by Land Acquisition Officer made on 
25.5.1991J-Compensation determined on the basis of compensation given for 
lands acquired under an earlier notification, keeping in view the time lag 
between the two notifications-Held valid-For the land situated on the main 
road and aifutting developed area higher compensation determined-Keeping 
in view the potential value of the /and-Claimants entitled to benefit u/s. D 
)• 
23(1-A), 23(2) and 28. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7033-34 
of 1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh E 
High Court in AS. Nos. 2030 and 2597 of 1992. 
R. Venugopal Reddy, S. Vijay Kumar, Ms. Rani Chhabra, G. 
Seshagiri Rao and Mohan Rao for the Appellants. 
G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. 
· The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
( 
· Leave granted 
F 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 G 
(for short, the 'Act') was published on August 29, 1989 acquiring an extent 
of 9 acres 25 guntas of land in Pargi Town, Ranga Reddy District in the 
State of Andhra Pradesh for public purpose, namely, to provide house sites 
to the weaker sections. Possession of the land was taken on June 5, 1986 
pursuant to an earlier notification which had lapsed for failure to pass the H 
823 
,----
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A award. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated May 25, 1990 
determined the compensation @ Rs. 7,500 per acre in respect of some 
lands and Rs. 15,000 per acre in respect of other lands and, in addition, 
granted Rs. 5,000 for well. On reference under Section 18, the Subordinate 
Judge, Vikarabad in his award and decree dated February 12, 1992 deter-
B mined the compensation at Rs. 36 per sq. yd. He determined the value of 
the well at Rs. 18,100. Both the State as well as the claimants filed appeals 
in the High Court. In three different sets of appeals, the different Division 
Benches followed the judgment of a learned single Judge of that Court in 
Ex. A-2 in which Rs. 11 per sq. yd. was determined as compensation after 
deductions and the same was proportionately increased to Rs. 22 per sq. 
C yd. due to time lag. Accordingly appeals of the State were allowed and that 
of the claimants were dismissed in AS. Nos. 2030/92 & AS. No. 2597/92 
dated 8.9.93 and another judgment in A.S. No. 2024/92, 2028/92, 1662 & 
1663/93 & AS. Nos. 2029/92 & 2598/92 dated 16.9.93. Thus these appeals 
by special leave. 
D 
Shri 'R. Venugopal Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for 
the appellants contended that the reasoning adopted by the Division 
Benches of the High Court is not correct in law. According to the learned 
c~unsel, the lands covered in the judgments under Ex. A-3, Ex. A-4 and 
Ex. A-5, in addition to Ex. A-2 also offer comparable basis for determina-
E lion of the compensation. The notifications therein were issued during 
period from 1976 to 1982. The different higher rates of compensation have 
been granted by the High Court in the appeals. The Division Bench, 
therefore, was not right in relying upon Ex. A-2 alone as a basis and 
reducing the compensation to Rs.,22 per sq. yd. He has placed before us 
F the site plan marked in the case as Ex. Acl. From a perusal of the site plan, 
it is seen that the lands bearing ~urvey No. 18 is adjacent to the lands 
bearing Survey Nos. 24/2 which ar~ the subject matter of the acquisition 
under Ex. A-2. The notification under Ex. A-2 was dated 13.4.1979. A 
learned single judge of the High Court, after taking into consideration the 
situation of the lands and the development, reduced the compensation to 
G 
50% of the compensation towards developmental charges and determined 
the compensation at Rs. 11 per sq. yd. That order has become final. 
Therefore,.,the Division Bench has rightly placed reliance upon that judg-
ment and in view of the time lag between the date of the notification under 
Ex. A-2 and the date of the notification in these cases has proportionately 
H increased the compensation and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 
• 
GOWRAMMAv. LAO-CUM-MANDALREVENUEOFFICER 
825 
22 per sq. yd. after due deductions. Th~ lands under Ex. A-3 and Ex. A-4 A 
are si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.