Adavala Sathaiah & Ors. Vs. The Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Unit I & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 15487 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16683 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.92 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.NO. 2660 of 1985)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16683 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.92 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.NO. 2660 of 1985)
Petitioner: Adavala Sathaiah & Ors.
Respondent: The Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Unit I & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 15487 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16683 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.92 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.NO. 2660 of 1985)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16683 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.92 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.NO. 2660 of 1985)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 26, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. A. Subba Rao, Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Advocates for the Appel-lants.
Mr. K.C. Dua and Mr. G.Prabhakar, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act 1894
Compensation – Held the lands in question being agricultural lands, the prevailing market value at date of acquisition varied between Rs. 6000 to Rs. 6500 per acre – Compensation fixed Rs. 6000 per acre – Appeal allowed.
Land Acquisition Act 1894
Compensation – Held the lands in question being agricultural lands, the prevailing market value at date of acquisition varied between Rs. 6000 to Rs. 6500 per acre – Compensation fixed Rs. 6000 per acre – Appeal allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 11 to 14 and 18 have left their respective places without any instructions as per endorsement made by the Postal authorities. Under these circumstances, notice on them is not necessary. Regarding respondent Nos.4, 7 to 10, 15 to 17 and 19 to 20, it is stated that neither unserved envelops nor A.D. Cards have been received back by the Registry. Under these circumstances, they must be deemed to have been served. Even though the petitioners succeed, these respondents cannot get the same benefit because they did not challenge the award. They being pro forma respondents, notice on them is not necessary.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
4. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the A.P. High Court, made on March 3, 1992 in the Appeal No.2660/85. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 8, 1979, acquir-ing 71 acres 12 cents of land for the public purpose, namely, erection of National Thermal Power Corporation. The Land Acqui-sition Officer awarded Rs.4,000/- and Rs.4,500/- per acre for Group I and Group II of the lands. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,500/- per acre for Group I and Group II respectively. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. Thus this appeal by special leave.
5. It is seen that all the lands were agricultural lands at the time of acquisition and their prevailing market value varies between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per acre. Under these circum-stances, it would be just and proper if the compensation is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per acre uniformly to all the lands. It is ordered accordingly.
6. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
1. Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 11 to 14 and 18 have left their respective places without any instructions as per endorsement made by the Postal authorities. Under these circumstances, notice on them is not necessary. Regarding respondent Nos.4, 7 to 10, 15 to 17 and 19 to 20, it is stated that neither unserved envelops nor A.D. Cards have been received back by the Registry. Under these circumstances, they must be deemed to have been served. Even though the petitioners succeed, these respondents cannot get the same benefit because they did not challenge the award. They being pro forma respondents, notice on them is not necessary.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
4. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the A.P. High Court, made on March 3, 1992 in the Appeal No.2660/85. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 8, 1979, acquir-ing 71 acres 12 cents of land for the public purpose, namely, erection of National Thermal Power Corporation. The Land Acqui-sition Officer awarded Rs.4,000/- and Rs.4,500/- per acre for Group I and Group II of the lands. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,500/- per acre for Group I and Group II respectively. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. Thus this appeal by special leave.
5. It is seen that all the lands were agricultural lands at the time of acquisition and their prevailing market value varies between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per acre. Under these circum-stances, it would be just and proper if the compensation is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per acre uniformly to all the lands. It is ordered accordingly.
6. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
