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
interference.

  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
TTD. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS.

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) 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