Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1996) 03 SC CK 0070

Masipatla Raghavulu vs Revenue Divisional Officer, L.A.O., Peddapalli

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 15 March 1996 · Citation: (1996) 3 AD 382 : AIR 1996 SC 3130 : (1996) 3 JT 678 : (1996) 3 SCALE 189 : (1996) 8 SCC 242 : (1996) 3 SCR 492

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · G. T. Nanavati, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 5086 of 1996.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 268 words
1.

Intervention is allowed.

2.

Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.

3.

Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') acquiring large extent of land for National Thermal Power Corporation, was published on September 22, 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation @ Rs. 3,000 per acre. On reference, the learned sub-Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,500 per acre. On appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order passed by the learned sub-Judge. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4.

It is not in dispute that when for the same purpose another land was acquired from Maidpalli village to which Lingapur is a hamlet, the Corporation itself had taken decision to withdraw the appeals since the compensation was less than Rs. 8,000. On that basis, the High Court confirmed the market value at Rs. 8,400 per acre in Appeal Nos. 869 and 871 of 1985. In view of the fact that the Corporation itself had taken a policy decision to withdraw the appeals where the value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre and less, and since the lands are situated in the hamlet of the main village Maidpalli which are contiguous blocks, the determination of the compensation in respect of these lands also would be at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre.

5.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The appellant is entitled to solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation at the rates prevailing prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. No costs.