L. Srinivasa Reddy & Ors. Vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3081-3083 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18932-18934/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18932-18934/1999)
Petitioner: L. Srinivasa Reddy & Ors.
Respondent: The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 3081-3083 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18932-18934/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18932-18934/1999)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 2000
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Compensation – Land Acquisition Officer granting Rs. 13,000 per acre – High Court noticing no evidence one way or the other – On basis of method of capitalisation, on which some evidence was on record, compensation fixed at Rs. 22,000 per acre – Justification. Held that approach was not justified. Orders set aside and matter remitted back to Reference Court.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This is a claimant’s appeal arising out of land acquisition proceeding. A certain extent of land in the village Anugonda was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,000 per acre. Being dissatisfied with this award on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court affirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Offic-er. Thereafter, the matter was carried in appeal to the High Court. The High Court noticed that there was hardly any evidence before the Court to come to the conclusion one way or the other. However, by adopting capitalisation method, on which there is some evidence, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 22,000/- per acre by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisi-tion Officer, as affirmed by the Reference Court.
4. We do not think the approach of the High Court in this matter is satisfactory. If as stated by the High Court there was no evidence to determine the compensation, the proper course for the High Court was to have remitted the matter to the concerned authority to adduce evidence in that regard and then determined appropriate compensation or on the available material should have examined the matter and determined appropriate compensation. Now neither of these courses having been adopted by the High Court, we have no other option but to set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court to examine in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court and to determine the appropriate compensation or to adopt any other course. The appeals are allowed accordingly. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This is a claimant’s appeal arising out of land acquisition proceeding. A certain extent of land in the village Anugonda was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,000 per acre. Being dissatisfied with this award on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court affirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Offic-er. Thereafter, the matter was carried in appeal to the High Court. The High Court noticed that there was hardly any evidence before the Court to come to the conclusion one way or the other. However, by adopting capitalisation method, on which there is some evidence, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 22,000/- per acre by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisi-tion Officer, as affirmed by the Reference Court.
4. We do not think the approach of the High Court in this matter is satisfactory. If as stated by the High Court there was no evidence to determine the compensation, the proper course for the High Court was to have remitted the matter to the concerned authority to adduce evidence in that regard and then determined appropriate compensation or on the available material should have examined the matter and determined appropriate compensation. Now neither of these courses having been adopted by the High Court, we have no other option but to set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court to examine in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court and to determine the appropriate compensation or to adopt any other course. The appeals are allowed accordingly. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
