ITEM NO.114 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2301 OF 2005
BHEEMI SETTY NAGAIAH (D) BY LRS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date: 06/05/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
For Appellant(s) Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. B. Ramana Murthy, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is partly allowed and impugned
judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated in
the signed order. No order as to the costs.
(Indu Satija) (Ajay Kr. Jain)
Court Master AR-cum-PS
(Signed order is placed on the file)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2005
Bheemi Setty Nagaiah (D) by .... Appellant
Lrs.
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer .... Respondents
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal
has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 25.2.2003
passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S. No. 259/01
whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent herein was
dismissed and the appeal filed by appellants-claimants was
allowed.
2. The facts in detail are stated in the impugned
judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.
3. It has been stated in the impugned judgment that
the market value of the land comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupess
One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) per acre but instead the
High Court has granted only Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Thousand only) per acre.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the figure of Rs. 1,20,000/- was on the basis of post
notification sales. Those sales are of the year 1992-93 and
the land in question was acquired on 29.8.1992. Hence there
is not much difference in the time between acquisition and
the concerned sale deeds hence even if they are post
notification sales, in our opinion, they were relevant for
calculating compensation. The position would have been
different had those sales been a long time after acquisition
of the present land. But that is not so.
5. Hence we partly allow this appeal and direct that
the claimant shall be paid compensation at the rate Rs.
1,20,000/- per acre instead of Rs. 90,000/- per acre, as
directed by the High Court. The impugned judgment is
modified accordingly.
6. Appeal partly allowed and no order as to the costs.
.....................J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
.....................J.
(A.K. PATNAIK)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 06, 2010
