Bhavani Sankasamma vs Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—Few facts are not disputed in this case viz., the nature of the land, its situation, its nature, the extent acquired, purpose for which the land is acquired, notification u/s 4(1), the date on which the possession was taken over etc. The claim of the petitioner-claimant before tire L.A.O. was Rs. 15007- per ankanam. On enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.210/- per ankanam and awarded compensation of Rs.9,413.04 including solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at 6%. Not satisfied with the award, the petitioner-claimant sought reference u/s 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the L.A.O. referred the matter to the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi. After considering the matter, the learned Judge has enhanced the compensation at Rs.400/-per ankanani with solatium at 30% on the enhanced amount and interest at 9% and 15% as per Section 34 of L.A. Act. Infixing tire amount as mentioned above, the learned Judge had placed reliance on the order passed by that Court in OP 32/83 in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and acquired for the same purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

It is contended that the Court below is not justified in not enhancing the compensation as claimed by the claimant. The enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court below is meagre. It should have at least enhanced the compensation at Rs.600/- per ankanam. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the land acquired of the claimant is quite different when compared to tire land covered by OP 32/83, in the sense that the land is situated at a busy locality where hotels, RTC bus stand, cinema theatres etc., are already established. It is also contended that the Court below while fixing the compensation failed to take into consideration the well that was existing within the said land and also the foundation that was put up by the petitioner. These two special features were not existing in the land that was acquired which was a subject matter of OP 32/83. In this case the claimant claimed Rs. 18,0007- compensation for foundation and Rs. 10,000/-for digging a well.

According to us, except claiming the above compensation towards foundation and well, no evidence is produced for having spent so much. Though these expenses for foundation and well look a bit exorbitant, the claimant is definitely entitled for some compensation under these two items. In our view, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the foundation and Rs.10,000/- towards well i.e., a total of Rs.20,000/- under the above two items, in addition to the compensation awarded at Rs.400/- per ankanam together with all statutory benefits, excluding 12% additional market value. The order of the Court below is accordingly modified and the order now reads as follows:

The claimant-appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.400/- per ankanam in addition to Rs. 10,000/- towards foundation and Rs.10,000/- towards the welt. The claimant is also entitled for statutory benefits of 30% solatium, 9% interest for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% after one year till its realisation. The claimant is not entitled for additional market value at 12%. The claimant is also entitled for proportionate costs.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part, with the above modification in the award passed by the Court below. Proportionate Costs ordered.