Land Acquisition Act - Just Compensation - copies of orders/awards passed in relation to the adjacent lands for proving the market rate of the land in question because as mentioned above, these lands were situated in the same area nearer to the lands in question and were also acquired for the same public purpose - is the best of piece of evidence - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

We are, however, of the view that  the  Reference  Court  having  held
that the appellants were  entitled  to  compensation  at  the  rate  varying
between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet, should have fixed  one  uniform
rate for the entire land rather than to fix different rates such as  Rs.80/-
, Rs.86/-, Rs.90/- and Rs.100/- per square feet  for  different  landowners.

In our view, since the land of all the appellants was more or  less  similar
in nature and no evidence  was  adduced  by  the  appellants  to  prove  any
significant  improvement/addition  or/dissimilarity  in  the  land  or   its
quality, the Reference Court should have fixed one uniform rate.

The appellants (landowners) were, therefore, justified in  filing  the
copies of orders/awards  passed  in  relation  to  the  adjacent  lands  for
proving the market rate of the land in question because as mentioned  above,
these lands were situated in the same area nearer to the lands  in  question
and were also acquired for the same public purpose.

It  was
all the more because  no  sale  deeds  were  available  for  filing  due  to
peculiar reason that there was a statutory ban imposed  by  Section  123  of
the A.P. Act for sale of private land in the area in question.  It  was  for
this reason, no private sale had taken place of any parcel of  land  at  the
relevant time barring one or two

we are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the appellants are entitled to get the compensation for their  respective  lands
at the rate of “Rs.90 per square feet”. So far as the  compensation  awarded
by the Reference Court for super-structure built on  each  appellant’s  land
is concerned, it does not call for any interference.  In our  view,  it  was
rightly upheld by the High Court and we also uphold  the  same,  calling  no

  we wish to observe is  that  in  case  if  any  of  the
appellants apply for allotment of any land/shop/space to TTD  for doing  any
business in the area under their  ownership  or/and  control  then  the  TTD
would be at liberty and may consider their case for providing  them  a  shop
or land or space, as the case may be,  pursuant to any of their  scheme,  if
any in force, on suitable terms  and  conditions  alike  others  as  a  fine
gesture on the part of the TTD, for compliance.

 We, however, make it clear that the observations made in para  33  are
only in the nature of observations and not an order/writ issued against  the

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS