15 March 1996
Supreme Court
Download

MASIPATLA RAGHAVULU Vs REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-005086-005086 / 1996
Diary number: 89360 / 1993


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: MASIPATLA RAGHAVULU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,LAO, PEDDAPALLI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (3)   678        1996 SCALE  (3)189

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Intervention is allowed.      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      Notification  under   Section  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 8  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.      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 Naidpalli 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.      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.