AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
The survey No. 4/P2 totally measures 1 acre 30 guntas. The said land was granted in favour of respondent No. 3 on 15.12.1978. The Saguvalli Chit was issued on 11.1.1979. Admittedly after the Act having come into force, the petitioner purchased one acre of land out of the total extent of 1 acre 30 guntas pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2002. The respondent No. 3 makes an application seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner grants the said application, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. M. Narayana Reddy., Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the grant in favour of respondent No. 3 was for an upset price. Hence, the Act itself is not applicable to such a grant.
Mr. Anajana Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order.
Apparently, as to what is upset price fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Siddegowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others, has ruled thus:
From the above rule, it is not possible to assume that upset price would always be the market value of the land. The upset price and market price are certainly different concepts and it may be true that in certain cases upset price may be the market value of the land. But that does not mean that upset price fixed shall always be equivalent to the market value of the land.
In the case on hand it is to be noticed that the entire extent of 1 acre 30 guntas was granted in favour of respondent No. 3 for an upset price of Rs. 68/-. Obviously that cannot be equated to the market value. Having said so, I am of the view that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner does not warrant interference. No other contentions are urged. Petition stands rejected.
Mr. Anjana Murthy, learned High) Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.