Sri. P.M.M Sidharthi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2013

Present: Sri P.M.M.Siddharthi, B.A., B.L., Prl. District Judge, Khammam.

L A.O.P.No. 932/2008 Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam.

..Petitioner

and

Koppula Madharaiah, S/o. ChinaSarvesham, Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Masion Mestry, R/o. Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

..Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 06-5-2013 in the presence of Government Pleader for the Petitioner; and of Sri M.Shiva Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This is a reference Under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act by the

Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Khammam,made at the beheast of the Respondent/claimant for enhancement of Compensation for their land acquired for the purpose of laying bye-pass road in Khammam. Vast extents of lands in different survey numbers were acquired by the Government for the said purpose and the possession there of was taken over as long back as 27 -10-1986.

The award by the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer was passed on 16.01.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.400/- per square yard to the claimant. An extent of 0.24 ½ gts. i.e. 2,964.50/ - square yards in Survey No.287, situated near Bank Colony, Khanapuram

Haveli, Khammam and Mandal, belonging to the claimant was acquired.

2. The claimant filed a protest contending that the L.A.O. who has determined the market value of the acquired land in the year 2006 has erroneously fixed the market value which is grossly inadequate.

Admittedly, the surroundings have considerably developed, that the 2 referring officer/Land Acquisition Officer has mechanically passed the

Award without making proper enquiry, that as per the market value prevailing on the date of notifications the rate per square yard was

Rs.2,475/-, but the L.A.O. has erroneously fixed the rate at Rs.400/- per square yard; that the acquired land is near the Residential and commercial area surrounded by Government Offices, schools, colleges and petrol bunk, which is commercial area; that number of transactions took place and that one Kilaru Sailaja purchased 405 square yards in the same survey number for Rs.7,29,000/- through Registered Sale deed

No.7893/04 from one T.Dakshina Murthy and one Vadiraju Ramachandra purchased 883.00 square yards in Survey No.287/E for a consideration of Rs.15,90,500/- through Registered sale deed No.1137/2005 from

T.Venkata Rao. and that the claimant may be awarded Rs.10,000/ - per square yard in addition to the mandatory benefits. It is also further claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer, Khammam ought to have calculated the interest on the market value and solatium @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession i.e. 27.10.86 to 26.10.87 and thereafter @ 15% i.e. from 27.10.87 to 16.0107 and also claimed for calculation of interest on the additional market value.

3. In order to prove the case, the claimant examined himself as

PW1 and examined PW2 and also produced Exs.A.1 to A.4. R.W.1 is examined and Ex.B.1 produced on behalf of the Referring Officer.

4. Arguments of both sides are heard. The Respondent/claimant also filed written arguments reiterating the contentions made earlier and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in “2001(2) L.S. 19” between L.A.O. & M.R.O., Appellants Vs.

V.Narasaiah, Respondent.

3

5. The points for consideration are that;

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per square yards as claimed?

2. Whether the rate fixed at Rs.400/- per square yard by the L.A.O. Needs to be enhanced?

6. POINT No.1 :

To prove the contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and 3 on his behalf. In support of his contention, he also got marked Ex.A.1 to A.4.

7. The petitioner who is examined as P.W.1 deposed re-iterating the contents of petition. He stated that the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue

Divisional Officer acquired his land to an extent of Ac.0.24 1/2 gts. i.e.

2,964.50/- square yards in Survey No.287, situated near Bank Colony,

Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Mandal and passed an award on 16.01.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.400/- per square yard. The referring Officer mechanically passed the award without making any proper enquiry of market value as on the date of Notification, even he had not based on the Registration value of the said land obtained from the Join Sub-Registrar, Khammam. He further stated that number of transactions took place in and around the property acquired by the

Referring Officer and the present market value of the Area is raising from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per square yard and the Registration value in the area is Rs.2,475/- per square yard. Further, he stated that the land of claimant is in Commercial Area, it is surrounded by

Government Offices, Schools, Colleges and Petrol Bunk. One Kilarju

Sailaja purchased 405.00 square yards in Sy.No.287 for a consideration of Rs.7,29,000/- through Registered Sale deed NO.7893/2004 from one

T.Dakshinamurthy and one Vadiraju Ramachandra had purchased 883.00 square yards in Sr.No.287/E part of consideration of 4

Rs.15,90,500/- through Registered sale deed NO.1137/2005 from

T.Venkateswara Rao. He further stated that he is entitled for additional market value from the date of taken over possession to the date of 4(1)

Notification and finally prayed to enhance the compensation from

Rs.400/- to Rs.10000/- per square yard. In support of his contention, he filed Ex.A.1 statement of market value in Sy.Nos. 287 issued by Joint

Sub-Registrar, Khammam showing the market value a Rs.2,300/- per square yard for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2010., Ex.A.2 is certified copy of Registered sale deed vide Doc.No.7893/2003, dt.29.09.2004 which shows the Sale transaction in the same survey number took place for RS.7,29,000/- to an extent of 405 square yards.

and Ex.A.3 shows another sale transaction took place on 07.02.2005, wherein 883.50 square yards was sold for Rs.15,90,500/- in the same survey number.

8. The petitioner also examined P.W.2 who is Purchaser of land in the same vicinity arising vide Ex.A.3. He purchased 405 sq. yards house site from Tagenallapalli Dakshinamurthy vide document

No.7393/2004, dt.29.09.2004 for a valid consideration of Rs.7,29,000/ -.

He further deposed that the land of claimant is surrounded by i.e. house plot, acquired by referring Officer is in residential and commercial area surrounded by Government Offices, Schools, Colleges and Petrol bunk and the value of the land is raising day by day.

9. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer is examined as R.W.1. He deposed that his predecessor passed the Award.

He stated that as per Award one Neelaeli Narasimha Rao had attended for the Award enquiry claiming to have purchased an exent of 0.32 gts.

Of land from Koppula Chinna Sarvesham which is 0.08 gts. More than the survey of sub-division reports, as per the acquisition notification in

Sy.No.287/2A and requested for compensation of Rs.8000/- to Rs.1000/- 5 per square yard. However, as per records only 0.32 gts. stands in the name of petitioner and that there is a dispute with regard to Title, the same was referred to the decision of Civil Court. He stated that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is quite just and valid on legal and analytical grounds. Since the land acquired being 7.22 gts. In Sy.No.279, 280, 282, 286, 28 and 226 the value for the land is taken in acreage and the value of the Registered sale transaction preceding to three years, approximately 149 sales of land which are not under acquisition have been discarded as the sale transactions pertaining to the said un acquired land. His predecessor after personally inspecting the abetting land coming under acquisition has found the value per square yard @ Rs.750/- and having had relied on decision cited as “1999ALT (Rev.) 90 (SC) that “Sale instances of small areas cannot be said to be comparable when a big chunk of land is acquired, the market value arrived @ Rs.400/- per square yard. Ex.B.1 is Award passed by Land Acquisition Officer.

10. On going through Ex.B.1/Award passed by Land Acquisition Officer it shows that for laying the bye-pass road from F.C.I. Godown to

Yellandu Road in Khammam, a total extent of Ac.7.20 gts. of land in

Survey No.279, 280, 282, 286, 287, 288 and 226 of Khanapuram Haveli was taken over. Till the year 1993, the Government confirmation was not received. Draft declarations and draft notifications were published on two occasions namely on 30.12.1997 and 25.10.2006, respectively. It is also admitted by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award that proposals were sent to the Government in the year 2004 and several of the claimants approached the High Court and obtained directions for quick determination and payment of compensation. It is also admitted by the

Land Acquisition Officer in the award that as per several sale transactions that took place and which are mentioned in the award, the 6 prevailing market value of the land in the year 2005 was in the range of

Rs.1500/- to Rs.2,476/- per square yard. It is also admitted that for the land in Survey No.279 which is at a distance of 1 km. from the acquired land, 52 sale transactions took place in the year 2006 ranging from

Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per square yard. Inspite of such a material

before the Land Acquisition Officer, he took the market value of Rs.750/ -

per square yard and appreciated it by 10% p.a. and fixed the market value at Rs.1,000/- per square yard and reduced it by 60% towards developmental charges and fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per square yard. The contention of the Land Acquisition Officer is they made an Enquiry and after considering comparative sales, award was passed, which is just and proper. There is no need to enhance the market value.

11. Upon considering the contentions of both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the land rates are increasing day by day at high rate. Even in Award number of proceedings are perused and the Land Acquisition Officer has admitted in his Award that in the year 2005 the prevailing market value was in the range of Rs.1500/- to Rs.2,476/- per square yard. Even as per the market valuation register maintained by the Registration Department in the year 2006, the minimum value per square yard was Rs.2,475/- and on this amount revenue was being collected by the Government. A perusal of the several sale deeds that are referred to in the Award also show the fact that the market value was in the range of Rs.2,500/ - per square yard. Ex.A.1 is the Market Value certificate issued by Joint Sub-

Registrar, Khammam showing the market value of Rs.2,300/- for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2010, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 are the certified copies of the Registered sale deeds showing the sale transactions in the vicinity of the land acquired.

7

12. The lands that are acquired are surrounded by several commercial establishments, residential houses, function halls etc. It is no doubt that the area has undergone a sea range only after the bye pass road was laid. The position as on the date of taking over possession in the year 1986 would have been certainly quite different.

But since the Government had delayed for a period of more than (20) years after initiation of acquisition proceedings the market value in the year 1986 shall not be taken into consideration. After Notification date also the market value was increased at high rate. Though, the claimant is claiming Rs.10,000/- per square yard, considering that while disposing the claim pertaining to similar L.A.O.P.No.384/2008 which was disposed on 01.04.2010, my predecessor enhanced the market value to Rs.2,000/ - per square yard, even for the last three years there is a rapid growth in the market value. Therefore, it is just and proper to enhance the market value from Rs.400/- to Rs.6,000/-.

In the result, reference is answered determining the market value at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per square yard together with all the consequential benefits that has been awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer to which the claimants are entitled as per law. The claimant is entitled to all the benefits that are granted to him in the award except that the rate per square yard shall be fixed at Rs.6,000/ -, instead of Rs.400/- as awarded.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.6,000/-.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in sthe open court on this the 26th day of August,

2013.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

8

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner: P.W.1 : Koppula Madharaiah P.W.2 : Kilari Sailaja

Respondents:

R.W.1 : V.Venkateswarlu

Exhibits marked for Petitioner:

Ex.A1 – Statements of market value issued by Joint Sub-Registrar, Khammam. Ex.A2 - Certified copy of Registered sale deed vide DOC.No.7893/04, dt.29.9.04. Ex.A3 - Certified copy of Registered sale deed vide DOC No.1137/05, dt.7.2.05. Ex.A4 - Copy of Registered sale deed No.7893/04 Dt.29.09.2004.

Respondents: Ex.B.1 - Award passed by the Referring Officer, dt.16.1.07.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2013

Present: Sri P.M.M.Siddharthi, B.A., B.L., Chairman, MACT (District Judge), Khammam.

M V.O.P.No. 1254/2006 Presented on: 27.10.2006

Filed on: 23.11.2006

Between: Charugundla Srinivas, S/o.Ramachandraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.7-7-178/3, Lenin Nagar, Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..Claim-Petitioner

and

1. Narayana Lodh, S/o. Durga Prasad Age: 45 yrs., Occ:Owner of Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 20 W 3736, R/o.H.No.1-1-62, Kalimayagudi Street, Yellandu, Khammam District.

2. M/s.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Punamchander Complex, Hanumakonda Chowrastha, Warangal (Vide Policy No.610900/31/05/00527 valid from 9.5.2005 to 8.5.2006)

..Respondents

CLAIM FOR: This is a petition filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claim-petitioner on 06-02-2006 at 02.00 P.M. Mylavaram cross Road, after crossing Kinnerasani Filter bed, Kothagudem.

COURT FEE: A court fee of Rs.860/- is paid U/R 475(1)(b) of A.P. M.V.Rules, 1989.

D E C R E E

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 05-2-2013 in the presence of Smt. P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the Claim-Petitioner; and of Sri Sk.Latheef, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri B.Srikanth, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court doth Order and decree that;

1. This petition be and is hereby is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with proportionate costs in favour of petitioner and against the Respondents No.1 and 2 : 2 :

2. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. there on from the date of institution of this petition till the date of deposit.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 are also directed to deposit the amount within two months from today.

4. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the amount forthwith and the remaining amount after one year, during 1 0 which period the same shall be kept in F.D.R. in any Nationalised Bank.

5 Respondents No.1 and 2 are also liable to pay Rs. towards proportionate costs.

6. The advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2013.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T (PRL. DIST. JUDGE)

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

For petitioner: For R1 R2

1. Stamps on petition. 860-00

2. Stamps on power. 2-00

3. Stamps on process.

4. Stamps on I.As

5. Stamps on documents.

6. Advocate’s fee 1,500.00 - - - (Fixed by Court)

7. Commissioner’s fee. -

8. Publication charges. -

9. Type & Misc. charges. 50-00 ----------------------------------------------------- Total: ----------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T(PRL. DIST.JUDGE):

KHAMMAM.

1 1

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2013

Present: Sri P.M.M.Siddharthi, B.A., B.L., Prl. District Judge, Khammam.

L A.O.P.No. 931/2008 Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam.

..Petitioner

and

Nelavelli Narasimha Rao, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, Age: 71 yrs., Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.VDO's Colony, Khammam.

..Respondent

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 25-7-2013 in the presence of Government Pleader for the Petitioner; and of Sri M.Shiva Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This is a reference Under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act by the

Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, made at the beheast of the Respondent/claimant for enhancement of

Compensation for their land acquired for the purpose of laying bye-pass road in Khammam. Vast extents of lands in different survey numbers were acquired by the Government for the said purpose and the possession there of was taken over as long back as 27-10-1986. The award by the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer. was passed on 16.01.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.400/- per square yard to the claimant. An extent of 0.24 gts. i.e. 2,904/- square yards in

Survey No.287, situated near Bank Colony, Khanapuram Haveli,

Khammam and Mandal, belonging to the claimant was acquired.

2. The claimant filed a protest contending that the Land Acquisition

Officer who has determined the market value of the acquired land in the year 2006 has erroneously fixed the market value which is grossly 2 inadequate. Admittedly, the surroundings have considerably developed, that the referring officer/Land Acquisition Officer has mechanically passed the Award without making proper enquiry, that as per the market value prevailing on the date of notifications the rate per square yard was

Rs.2,475/-, but the L.A.O. has erroneously fixed the rate at Rs.400/- per square yard; that the acquired land is near the Residential and commercial area surrounded by Government Offices, schools, colleges and petrol bunk, which is commercial area; that number of transactions took place and that one Kilaru Sailaja purchased 405 square yards in the same survey number for Rs.7,29,000/- through Registered Sale deed

No.7893/04 from one T.Dakshina Murthy, and one Vadiraju

Ramachandra purchased 883.00 square yards in Survey No.287/E for a consideration of Rs.15,90,500/- through Registered sale deed

No.1137/2005 from T.Venkata Rao. and that the claimant may be awarded Rs.10,000/- per square yard in addition to the mandatory benefits. It is also further claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer,

Khammam ought to have calculated the interest on the market value and solatium @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession i.e.

27.10.86 to 26.10.87 and thereafter @ 15% i.e. from 27.10.87 to 16.0107 and also claimed for calculation of interest on the additional market value.

3. In order to prove the case, the claimant examined himself as

PW1 and examined PW2 and PW3 and produced Exs.A.1 to A.3. R.W.1 is examined and Ex.B.1 produced on behalf of the Referring Officer.

4. Arguments of both sides are heard. The claimant also filed written arguments reiterating the contentions made earlier and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in “2001(2) L.S. 19” between L.A.O. & M.R.O., Appellants Vs.

V.Narasaiah, Respondent.

3

5. The points for consideration are that;

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per square yards as claimed?

2. Whether the rate fixed at Rs.400/- per square yard by the L.A.O. Needs to be enhanced?

6. POINT No.1 :

To prove the contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf. In support of his contention, he also got marked Ex.A.1 to A.3.

7. The petitioner who is examined as P.W.1 deposed re-iterating the contents of petition. He stated that the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue

Divisional Officer acquired his land to an extent of Ac.0.24 gts. i.e.

2,904/- square yards in Survey NO.287, situated near Bank Colony,

Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Mandal and passed an award on 16.01.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.400/- per square yard. The referring Officer mechanically passed the award without making any proper enquiry of market value as on the date of Notification, even he had not based on the Registration value of the said land obtained from the Join Sub-Registrar, Khammam. He further stated that number of transactions took place in and around the property acqu ired by the

Referring Officer and the present market value of the Area is raising from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per square yard and the Registration value in the area is Rs.2,475/- per square yard. Further, he stated that the land of claimant is in Commercial Area, it is surrounded by

Government Offices, Schools, Colleges and Petrol Bunk. One Kilarju

Sailaja purchased 405.00 square yards in Sy.No.287 for a consideration of Rs.7,29,000/- through Registered Sale deed NO.7893/2004 from one

T.Dakshinamurthy and one Vadiraju Ramachandra had purchased 883.00 square yards in Sr.No.287/E part of consideration of 4

Rs.15,90,500/- through Registered sale deed NO.1137/2005 from

T.Venkateswara Rao. He further stated that he is entitled for additional market value from the date of taken over possession to the date of 4(1)

Notification and finally prayed to enhance the compensation from

Rs.400/- to Rs.10000/- per square yard. In support of his contention, he filed Ex.A.1 statement of market value in Sy.NOs.286 and 287 issued by

Joint Sub-Registrar, Khammam showing the market value a Rs.2,300/- per square yard for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2010., Ex.A.2 is certified copy of Registered sale deed vide Doc.No.7893/2003, dt.29.09.2004 which shows the Sale transaction in the same survey number took place for RS.7,29,000/- to an extent of 405 square yards.

and Ex.A.3 shows another sale transaction took place on 07.02.2005, wherein 883.50 square yards was sold for Rs.15,90,500/- in the same survey number.

8. The petitioner also examined P.W.2 who is claimant in

O.P.932/2008 whose land was also acquired by Government. He filed certified copy of Judgment and Decree copy in L.A.O.P.384/2008, which was awarded by this Court on 01.04.2010 in the matter arising out of the same award. P.W.3 is the Purchaser of land in the same arising vide

Ex.A.3

9. The Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer is examined as R.W.1. He deposed that his predecessor passed the Award.

He stated that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition

Officer is quite just and valid on legal and analytical grounds. Since the land acquired being 7.22 gts. In Sy.No.279, 280, 282, 286, 28 and 226 the value for the land is taken in acreage and the value of the

Registered sale transaction preceding to three years, approximately 149 sales of land which are not under acquisition have been discarded as the sale transactions pertaining to the said un acquired land. His 5 predecessor after personally inspecting the abetting land coming under acquisition has found the value per square yard @ Rs.750/- and having had relied on decision cited as “1999ALT (Rev.) 90 (SC) that “Sale instances of small areas cannot be said to be comparable when a big chunk of land is acquired, the market value arrived @ Rs.400/- per square yard. Ex.B.1 is Award passed by Land Acquisition Officer.

10. On going through Ex.B.1/Award passed by Land Acquisition Officer it shows that for laying the bye-pass road from F.C.I. Godown to

Yellandu Road in Khammam, a total extent of Ac.7.20 gts. of land in

Survey No.279, 280, 282, 286, 287, 288 and 226 of Khanapuram Haveli was taken over. Till the year 1993, the Government confirmation was not received. Draft declarations and draft notifications were published on two occasions namely on 30.12.1997 and 25.10.2006, respectively. It is also admitted by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award that proposals were sent to the Government in the year 2004 and several of the claimants approached the High Court and obtained directions for quick determination and payment of compensation. It is also admitted by the

Land Acquisition Officer in the award that as per several sale transactions that took place and which are mentioned in the award, the prevailing market value of the land in the year 2005 was in the range of

Rs.1500/- to Rs.2,476/- per square yard. It is also admitted that for the land in Survey No.279 which is at a distance of 1 km. from the acquired land, 52 sale transactions took place in the year 2006 ranging from

Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per square yard. Inspite of such a material

before the Land Acquisition Officer, he took the market value of Rs.750/ -

per square yard and appreciated it by 10% p.a. and fixed the market value at Rs.1,000/- per square yard and reduced it by 60% towards developmental charges and fixed the market value at Rs.400/ - per square yard. The contention of the Land Acquisition Officer is they made 6 an Enquiry and after considering comparative sales, award was passed, which is just and proper. There is no need to enhance the market value.

11. Upon considering the contentions of both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the land rates are increasing day by day at high rate. Even in Award number of proceedings are perused and the Land Acquisition Officer has admitted in his Award that in the year 2005 the prevailing market value was in the range of Rs.1500/- to Rs.2,476/- per square yard. Even as per the market valuation register maintained by the Registration Department in the year 2006, the minimum value per square yard was Rs.2,475/ - and on this amount revenue was being collected by the Government. A perusal of the several sale deeds that are referred to in the Award also show the fact that the market value was in the range of Rs.2,500/- per square yard. Ex.A.1 is the Market Value certificate issued by Joint Sub -

Registrar, Khammam showing the market value of Rs.2,300/- for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2010, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 are the certified copies of the Registered sale deeds showing the sale transactions in the vicinity of the land acquired.

12. The lands that are acquired are surrounded by several commercial establishments, residential houses, function halls etc. It is no doubt that the area has undergone a sea range only after the bye pass road was laid. The position as on the date of taking over possession in the year 1986 would have been certainly quite different.

But since the Government had delayed for a period of more than (20) years after initiation of acquisition proceedings the market value in the year 1986 shall not be taken into consideration. After Notification date also the market value was increased at high rate. Though, the claimant is claiming Rs.10,000/- per square yard, considering that while disposing the claim pertaining to similar L.A.O.P.No.384/2008 which was disposed 7 on 01.04.2010, my predecessor enhanced the market value to Rs.2,000/ - per square yard, even for the last three years there is a rapid growth in the market value. Therefore, it is just and proper to enhance the market value from Rs.400/- to Rs.6,000/-.

In the result, reference is answered determining the market value at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per square yard together with all the consequential benefits that has been awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer to which the claimants are entitled as per law. The claimant is entitled to all the benefits that are granted to him in the award except that the rate per square yard shall be fixed at Rs.6,000/ -, instead of Rs.400/- as awarded.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.6,000/-.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of August,

2013.

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner: P.W.1 : Nelavelli Narasimha Rao. P.W.2 : Koppula Madharaiah P.W.3 : Kilari Sailaja

Respondents: R.W.1 : V.Venkateswarlu Exhibits marked for Petitioner:

Ex.A1 – Statements of market value issued by Joint Sub-Registrar, Khammam. Ex.A2 - Certified copy of Registered sale deed vide DOC.No.7893/04, dt.29.9.04. Ex.A3 - Certified copy of Registered sale deed vide DOC No.1137/05, dt.7.2.05. Respondents: Ex.B.1 - Award passed by the Referring Officer, dt.16.1.07.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

8 . 9

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2013

Present: Sri P.M.M.Siddharthi, B.A., B.L., Chairman, MACT (District Judge), Khammam.

M V.O.P.No. 1254/2006 Presented on: 27.10.2006

Filed on: 23.11.2006

Between: Charugundla Srinivas, S/o.Ramachandraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.7-7-178/3, Lenin Nagar, Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..Claim-Petitioner

and

1. Narayana Lodh, S/o. Durga Prasad Age: 45 yrs., Occ:Owner of Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 20 W 3736, R/o.H.No.1-1-62, Kalimayagudi Street, Yellandu, Khammam District.

2. M/s.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Punamchander Complex, Hanumakonda Chowrastha, Warangal (Vide Policy No.610900/31/05/00527 valid from 9.5.2005 to 8.5.2006)

..Respondents

CLAIM FOR: This is a petition filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claim-petitioner on 06-02-2006 at 02.00 P.M. Mylavaram cross Road, after crossing Kinnerasani Filter bed, Kothagudem.

COURT FEE: A court fee of Rs.860/- is paid U/R 475(1)(b) of A.P. M.V.Rules, 1989.

D E C R E E

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 05-2-2013 in the presence of Smt. P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the Claim-Petitioner; and of Sri Sk.Latheef, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri B.Srikanth, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court doth Order and decree that;

1. This petition be and is hereby is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with proportionate costs in favour of petitioner and against the Respondents No.1 and 2 : 2 :

2. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. there on from the date of institution of this petition till the date of deposit.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 are also directed to deposit the amount within two months from today.

4. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the amount forthwith and the remaining amount after one year, during 1 0 which period the same shall be kept in F.D.R. in any Nationalised Bank.

5 Respondents No.1 and 2 are also liable to pay Rs. towards proportionate costs.

6. The advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2013.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T (PRL. DIST. JUDGE)

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

For petitioner: For R1 R2

1. Stamps on petition. 860-00

2. Stamps on power. 2-00

3. Stamps on process.

4. Stamps on I.As

5. Stamps on documents.

6. Advocate’s fee 1,500.00 - - - (Fixed by Court)

7. Commissioner’s fee. -

8. Publication charges. -

9. Type & Misc. charges. 50-00 ----------------------------------------------------- Total: ----------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T(PRL. DIST.JUDGE):

KHAMMAM.

1 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2013

Present: Sri P.M.M.Siddharthi, B.A., B.L., Prl. District Judge, Khammam.

C.M.A.No. 4/2011

Between:

Kesuboina Srinivas, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 35 yrs., Occ: Owner of the Vehicle TATA ACE No.AP 20 TA-1949 R/o.H.No.7-9-21/1, New Gollagudem, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

..Appellant

and

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Forest Range Officer, Kothagudem, through Government Pleader, Khammam.

..Respondent

This appeal is preferred praying to set-aside the Order passed by the Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem in

R.C.No.2849/2010/S7 (Offence Case No.51/OR/2010-11/KGM,

dt.03.11.2010 and Orders of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam in Rc.No.3747/2010/M5, dated 27.01.2011.

Between:

Forest Range Officer, Kothagudem

.. Complainant

and

Kesuboina Srinivas.

.. Respondent/Owner of

the Vehicle.

This appeal coming before me on 30-07-2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Babji, Advocate for Appellant and of the Government Pleader for Respondent; upon perusing the material papers on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal preferred under Rule 44(2-E) of A.P.Forest

Act, 1967 against order passed in R.C.No..2849/2010/S7 (Offence

Case No.51/OR/2010-11/KGM, dt.03.11.2010 and Orders of the Chief

Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam in

Rc.No.3747/2010/M5, dated 27.01.2011, where under the TATA

ACE bearing No. AP 20-TA-1949(Auto) was confiscated to State for carrying illegally Transporting (9) Teak Timber measuring 1.237 2 cmt. which was seized on checking, caught by Forest Range Officer,

Kothagudem.

2.The case of the appellant is that; the orders under appeal are Contrary to law, facts on record and the provisions of Forest Act and Rules and as such the same are liable to be set aside. The appellant has no knowledge or connivance in commissions of alleged forest offence. The Lower Court has failed to appreciate the fact that neither the appellant was present at the time of alleged offence nor at the time of seizure of vehicle. As such knowledge cannot be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the entire case proceedings do not disclose any knowledge or connivance of the appellant in the alleged offence. The proceeding clearly show that the appellant has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Even the statement of the driver shows that the appellant is in no way concerned with the alleged offence. Hence, his vehicle is to be released in his favour, setting aside the Order of the Lower authority.

3.Whereas the learned Government Pleader has submitted that on reliable information the Forest Range Officer, Kothagudem and staff proceeded on patrolling in Vidyanagar, Industrial Area, while patrolling at about 1.30 A.M. on 21.09.2010 a TATA ACE coming from Industrial Area side on suspicion stopped the vehicle.

The driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle and by seeing Forest

Officials, he ran away in dark. The Forest officials checked the vehicle and observed some Teak timer existing in the vehicle which are not having any transit mark. Hence, it was concluded that Teak

Timber being transported illegally. After due enquiry, the owner of the vehicle was directed to produce the driver for conducting enquiry. Accordingly, the owner sent his driver G.Prakash. The

Deputy Range Officer, Chatakonda took the driver into custody and conducted enquiry. Wherein driver admitted that some unknown person transported Teak logs from Industrial Area to Khammam and 3 that he has committed mistake by not knowing the Forest Rules and

Acts. As the Teak logs were transported in the vehicle, the Vehicle was seized and passed orders to confiscate to State.

4.Whether the petitioner-appellant is the owner of the TATA ACE bearing No. AP 20-TA-1949(Auto)? If so, Whether the illegal Transport of Forest produce has Taken place without knowledge or connivance as Contended by the appellant?

5.On a careful consideration of the respective contentions there is no dispute with regard to fact that vehicle is a Transport vehicle, which can be let out on hire. There is no hard and fast rule of having documentary proof in case of hiring of vehicles which are movable properties. It need not be born out by any documentary evidence as in the case of immovable properties. The vehicle stands in the name of petitioner. It is not the case of Department either himself or his agent were present when the vehicle was seized. It is not case of Department that he got connivance in commission of the offence. It is no doubt true that, there are circumstances with regarding to the claim being preferred by the petitioner.

In Judgment of F.R.O.Madanapally vs. Preetam

Singh reported in 1990(1) ALT 156 Their Lordships

of Division Bench, wherein it is observed that lack

of knowledge on the part of the vehicle owner is

held to be good ground for releasing the vehicle

especially when it is not shown the owner can

agent or not aware of such user.

Applying those principles to the facts of benefit should have definitely been given to the present petitioner-appellant which was not properly appreciated by lower authority. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Order of Lower authorities and appellant shall be given custody of the vehicle forth-with.

4

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Order of Lower authorities and the appellant shall be given custody of the TATA ACE Auto bearing NO.AP 20 TA 1949.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of August, 2013.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

5

TSKH000005012012

Presented on : 01-05-2012 Registered on : 03-05-2012 Decided on : 27-08-2013 Duration : 1 years, 3 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

SC/100224/2012 ps I TOWN KOTHAGUDEM VERSUS

PATHIPATI SHIVA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: PP, Advocate for J.Narayana Rao appearing for PATHIPATI SHIVA Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 302 IPc. He is acquitted under sec 235 of 1 crpc for the said offecne. accused is released if he is not required in any other case.

Date : 27-08-2013 PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

TSKH000010592010

Presented on : 22-10-2010 Registered on : 25-10-2010 Decided on : 30-08-2013 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

T.R.O.P/101062/2010

Smt. Narogani Saraswathamma VERSUS Smt. Rekhala Ramulamma and five others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : A.Tirumala Rao Advocate for : Swamy Ramesh Kumar appearing for Smt. Rekhala Ramulamma and five others: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

costs of Rs.1000/- paid Memo allowed. This T.O.P. is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 30-08-2013 PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM