9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Reduction of compensation by High Court - Disputes regarding compensation entitlement - Failure of Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference - Jurisdiction of the court to determine compensation - Analysis of sale deeds for compensation determination Reduction of compensation by High Court: The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court of Andhra Pradesh's judgment, which reduced the compensation awarded to the appellants by the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, for lands acquired by the State. The lands in question were situated near Vijayawada and alongside the Vijayawada-Eluru Road. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed specific rates per acre for different survey numbers, but the Subordinate Judge granted a uniform rate for all the lands. Disputes arose regarding the entitlement to compensation for certain survey numbers, leading to a reference to the Court for apportionment among claimants. The High Court ultimately reversed the Subordinate Judge's compensation amount but allowed the plea questioning the court's jurisdiction to be raised, despite objections from the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized that the State should not take advantage of the Land Acquisition Officer's failure to make a reference and that the High Court should have allowed time for the appellants to compel the reference. Disputes regarding compensation entitlement: Six appellants did not accept the Land Acquisition Officer's award and made timely applications for court determination. However, no reference was made by the Officer, leading to a jurisdictional issue. The High Court considered the absence of a reference on the question of compensation, but the Supreme Court held that the court's jurisdiction arises solely from a reference made by the Collector. The failure to object to the lack of reference does not constitute waiver or acquiescence when inherent jurisdiction is absent, as established in legal precedents cited by the Supreme Court. Failure of Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference: The Land Acquisition Officer failed to make a reference for determining compensation despite timely applications from the appellants. The Supreme Court highlighted the statutory provisions requiring a reference by the Officer for court determination and emphasized that jurisdiction arises only through such a reference. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to matters referred by the Collector, and the absence of a reference precludes the court from determining compensation. Jurisdiction of the court to determine compensation: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court had no jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation without a reference from the Land Acquisition Officer. Citing legal principles, the Court emphasized that jurisdiction granted by statute must be exercised based on specified terms, and failure to comply with these terms negates jurisdiction. The Court rejected the High Court's decision and held that the Court could not go behind the Land Acquisition Officer's order without a proper reference. Analysis of sale deeds for compensation determination: For determining the compensation amount, the High Court considered several sale deeds filed by both parties. The Court rejected certain deeds based on grounds such as being earlier than the notification date or located at a distance from the acquired land. Ultimately, the Court accepted specific sale deeds and awarded compensation at a certain rate per acre. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on the compensation amount, considering the details of the sale deeds and finding no substantial grounds for interference. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper references for court jurisdiction in determining compensation and upholding the compensation amount based on the accepted sale deeds analysis.
|
