8729-32 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NOs.5629-32 OF 2018 ISMAIL BHAI & OTHERS…..APPELLANT(s) VERSUS THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
ETC.
The land owners filed Writ Petition
No 5676 of 2003 which was disposed of on 18.04.2003 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to take action to make reference within six weeks. Even after direction by the High Court, reference was not made, however the land owners filed Contempt Case No 1668 of 2004. The land owners had also filed an appeal bearing LAAS No 353 of 2015 questioning the adequacy of compensation.
350/- per sq. yard had not been accepted on behalf of the Government, but agreed to fix Rs. Yard as per the proposal made by the officers to deduct the 20% of the land value, the amount comes to Rs. Finally by considering the prevailing market value of the land agreed the proposal of Mediator and fixed the land value @ Rs. In compliance to the above the Mediator High Court of, Judicature at Hyderabad has addressed a letter dated. In view of the above, kindly make it pursue the matter with Government and to provide the fund at the earliest to avoid any other future problems.” On the basis of the mediation report, relying upon the Joint Memorandum of Compromise executed by the parties, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department as well as the land owners were disposed of vide order dated 10.06.2016. After service of the notice of the said Writ Petition, the Revenue Department instead of complying the order of the High Court, filed petitions seeking recall of the order dated 10.06.2016 taking exception that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who signed the Joint Memorandum of Compromise, had not taken permission from the superior officers.
After restoration, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was allowed by High Court vide order dated 24.11.2017 reducing the compensation @ Rs. 303 of 2013 and 353 of 2015, the High Court vide order dated 19.12.2017 also disposed of LAAS No 163 of 2016 filed by Fakhruddin Ali (appellant herein), whose land was also acquired in the same impugned Notification. yard with solatium @ 30% on the market value as provided under Section 23(2), 12% p.a. A-7 and also the statement of the claimant PW1 and the retired Government Surveyor PW2 and also considering the statement of the Land Acquisition Officer RW-1 and Deputy Collector-cum-RDO examined as RW-2, determined the compensation @ Rs.
On the other hand, in the appeal filed by Revenue Department, it is urged that out of compensation so awarded, development charges have not been deducted and the area required for development has not been reduced while computing the compensation at the rate so determined by the High Court and prayed that the appeal filed by the Department may be allowed dismissing the appeal filed by the land owners.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-for-murder-and-concealment-of-body/
A-1 dated 21.09.1981 of village Bahadurpur which is of adjacent village because no sale deed of village Attapur in the said year was executed. The value of the said land as per said sale deed was Rs. On the contrary, the departmental witness has admitted before the Reference Court that the acquired land of the village is a prominent area within the vicinity of the city of Hyderabad. The acquired land may have been situated in Village Attapur but it is adjacent to Village Bahadurpur, where the land value was fixed as Rs.
In Recall Petitions, the said joint memorandum of compromise was challenged only on the ground that such compromise was signed without permission of the superior officer without challenging that the value of land as offered is on higher side. As discussed above, it is apparent that the land in the present case was acquired 40 years back in the year 1981 and the compensation was decided by LAO after litigating in courts only @ Rs. The land owners, whose land has been utilized 40 years back, now cannot be compelled to pay the development charge for the development which has already taken place, only for a parcel of land to which they have not given compensation up to decades.
Case Title: THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. ISMAIL BHAI (2022 INSC 1220)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008727-008728 / 2022
