{"id":220242,"date":"2002-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002"},"modified":"2017-01-10T05:18:51","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T23:48:51","slug":"the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan, S.N. Variava<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 9521-22  of  1995\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM-DSWO, AP\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. B.V. REDDY & SONS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/02\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan & S.N. Variava\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
With
\nWrit Petition (Civil) No. 349 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are directed against the judgment of
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
\n351 and 352 of 1989.  The land in question measuring 3.42
\nacres was acquired  for construction of houses for Tribals and
\nHarijans by issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the
\nLand Acquisition Act,\tpublished on 9.6.1976.\tA second
\nNotification was issued under said Section 4 to acquire an
\nextent of 1.06 acres by publication of Notification dated
\n27.12.1976. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the
\nmarket value of the acquired land @  Rs.11,000\/- per acre by
\nhis award dated 31.2.1977.  Before the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer, the land owners   had\tclaimed compensation  @ Rs.
\n25,000\/- to Rs. 30,000\/- per acre.  On a reference being made
\nunder Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court determined the
\nmarket value of the acquired land at Rs.75,000\/- per acre,
\nbut granted compensation @ Rs. 30.000\/- per acre in view of
\nSection 25 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment in
\nthe year 1984 and as the owners had claimed @ Rs.30,000\/-
\nper acre.  On appeal being carried, the learned Single Judge
\nalso came to the conclusion that the market value of the land
\nwould be Rs.75,000\/- per acre, but did not enhance the
\ncompensation in view of the un-amended provisions of
\nSection 25 of the Act and in view of the fact that the owners
\nhad claimed only Rs.30,000\/- per acre before the Land
\nAcquisition Officer.  The matter being carried to the Division
\nBench in Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench came to
\nthe conclusion that Section 25 being procedural in nature and
\nthe amendment having been made while the appeal was
\npending, the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act would apply and\t since under the amended
\nprovisions, there is no bar for awarding compensation more
\nthan the amount claimed by the claimants and the only
\nembargo being that the amount shall not be awarded less than
\nthe amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11,\tthe
\nCourt would be justified in enhancing the compensation if the
\nmarket value is determined at a higher rate.  On the question
\nof determination of market value, the Division Bench, taking
\ninto consideration Exhibits B-3, B-4 and B-7, came to hold
\nthat the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. one
\nlakh per acre.\tThe appeals having been allowed with the
\naforesaid conclusions, the State is in appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Guntur Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the appellant contended that the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court committed serious error in holding that Section
\n25 is procedural in nature and thereby applying the amended
\nprovisions of Section 25 of the Act.  According to him, the
\nprovisions of Section 25 mandates the parameters within
\nwhich the Court is required to determine the  amount of
\ncompensation and the act of awarding of compensation or
\ncurtailing, restricting or adding to such right can never be
\nheld to be procedural in nature.  According to the learned
\ncounsel the language itself reveals that it is substantive in
\nnature and it has been so held by this Court in the case of
\nKrishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Kanhaiya Lal and
\nOthers., Vol.<\/a> 2000 (7) SCC 756.\t That being the position,
\nthe substantive right of the party would be governed by the
\nun-amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act.
\nConsequently, it is urged that the claimants having claimed
\nonly Rs. 30,000\/- per acre, the Court will not be entitled to
\ngrant compensation beyond the amount claimed.  According
\nto Mr. Prabhakar, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
\nHigh Court committed serious error of law, which has
\nvitiated the ultimate conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe claimants-respondents on the other hand contended that
\nthe lawyer for the claimants without any authority from the
\nclaimants, made the application, even before the notice had
\nbeen served on the claimants and in such an application,
\nmentioned the claim at the rate of Rs.30,000\/- per acre and
\nsuch a claim cannot be held to be a claim made by the
\nclaimants, within the ambit of the un-amended provisions of
\nSection 25(1) of the Act.  Mr. Rao further contended that the
\nvery fact, the Parliament amended Section 25 of the Act and
\ntook away the earlier embargo with regard to the quantum of
\ncompensation, limiting the same to the amount claimed by
\nthe claimants is indicative of the legislative intent.\tThat
\nbeing the position and the Court having determined the
\nmarket value of the acquired land at Rs. one lakh per acre,
\nthere is no justification to deny that amount to the claimants,
\nsince under Article 31 of the Constitution, no person can be
\ndeprived of his property, save by  the authority of law.  Mr.
\nRao further submitted that the unamended provisions of
\nSection 25 is ultra vires and such a prayer has been made in
\nthe writ petition filed by the claimants under Article 32 of the
\nConstitution.  Mr. Rao lastly submitted that in the peculiar
\nfacts of this case, even if this Court may declare the law and
\npoint out the error in the Division Bench Judgment of the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court, yet ends of justice would not
\nrequire interference with the judgment of the Division Bench
\nof the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of
\nthe Constitution.  In support of this contention, reliance was
\nplaced on the decision of this Court in Taherakhatoon vs.
\nSalambin Mohammad,<\/a> 1999(2) S.C.C. 635.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness
\nof the contentions raised, it would be appropriate to notice
\nthe provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, as
\nit stood prior to its amendment and the provisions of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, as it stand subsequent to the amendment.\n<\/p>\n
“Section 25, prior to its amendment by Act 68
\nof 1984:\n<\/p>\n
’25.  Rules as to amount of Compensation- (1)
\nWhen the applicant has made a claim to
\ncompensation, pursuant to any notice given under
\nSection 9, the amount awarded to him by the
\nCourt shall not exceed the amount so claimed or
\nbe less than the amount awarded by the Collector
\nunder Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
(4)When the applicant has refused to make such
\nclaim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to
\nbe allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the
\namount awarded by the Court shall in no case
\nexceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
\n(5)When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient
\nreason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such
\nclaim, the amount awarded to him by the Court
\nshall not be less than, and may exceed the amount
\nawarded by the Collector.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 25 after the amendment:-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 25.  Amount of compensation by Court
\nnot be lower than the amount awarded by the
\nCollector:-  The amount of compensation awarded
\nby the Court shall not be less than the amount
\nawarded by the Collector under Section 11.”\n<\/p>\n
At this stage it would be proper to notice the scheme of the
\nAct itself.  After publication of preliminary notification under
\nSection 4 of the Act and causing pubic notice of the substance
\nof such notification by the Collector, objections are
\nentertained and heard,\tas provided under Section 5A of the
\nAct.  The Appropriate Government then becomes satisfied
\nthat the land is needed for public purpose and a declaration to
\nthat effect is made under Section 6 of the Act.\t Such
\ndeclaration is the conclusive evidence that the land is needed
\nfor a public purpose.  The Appropriate Government or the
\nofficer authorised by the Appropriate Government directs the
\nCollector to take order for the acquisition of the land, as
\nprovided under Section 7 and the Collector then cause the
\nland to be marked and measured and also he is supposed to
\nmake a plan of the same.  The Collector thereafter cause
\npublic notice to be given at convenient places on or near the
\nland,  stating that the Government intends  to take possession
\nof the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in
\nsuch land may be made to him, as provided under Section 9.
\nThe notice under Section 9(1) must state the necessary
\nparticulars,  as provided under sub-section (2) of said Section
\nand the Collector then serves notice on the occupier of the
\nland as well as on all such persons known or believed to be
\ninterested therein or would be entitled to act for persons so
\ninterested, or agents authorised to receive service on their
\nbehalf within the revenue district in which the land is situate.
\nIn case the person interested resides elsewhere and has no
\nsuch agent, the notice is required to be sent to him by post in a
\nletter addressed to him at his last known address, under sub-
\nsection (4) of Section 9.    Section 11 confers power on the
\nCollector to hold an inquiry with regard to the measurements
\nmade as well as inquiry to the valuation of the land on the
\ndate of Notification under Section 4(1) and thereafter it shall
\nmake an Award under his hand.  Such Award of the Collector
\nis required to be filed in the Collector’s Office and under law
\nis held to be final and conclusive evidence,   as between the
\nCollector and the persons interested on the question of true
\narea and value of the land and apportionment of the
\ncompensation among the persons interested.   We are not
\nconcerned with other provisions except Section 18 and
\nSection 25.  Section 18 entitles the person interested who has
\nnot accepted the award to make a written application to the
\nCollector, requiring that the matter of determination of
\ncompensation be referred to a competent Court.\t  Section 25
\nhowever, as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 68 of
\n1984, puts an embargo to the effect that if an applicant has
\nmade a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given
\nunder Section 9, then the amount awarded to him by the Court
\nshall not exceed  the amount so claimed\t and shall not be less
\nthan the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
\nThe aforesaid provision contained in sub-section (1) of
\nSection 25, thus limits the power of the reference Court on a
\nreference being made under Section 18 to the quantum of
\ncompensation which could be awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen these appeals had been listed before a Bench of
\ntwo learned Judges of this Court, the decision of this Court in
\nKrishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, 2000 (7) SCC 756, had been
\nplaced before the Bench and it was contended that since the
\naward in the case in hand is between 30th of September, 1982
\nand 24th of September, 1984, the compensation could be
\nawarded under the amended provisions of Section 25.  Since
\nthat decision prima facie supported the contention of the
\nclaimants-respondents and the Bench was of the view that the
\nsaid decision requires re-consideration, the matter had been
\nreferred to a Bench of three learned Judges and that is how the
\nmatter has been placed before us.  On the rival submissions
\nmade by the counsel for the parties, the following questions
\narise for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tCan the provision of  Section 25 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act be construed to be procedural in nature
\nor is substantive?\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIf it is held to be substantive in nature, then can the
\namended provisions of Section 25 of the Act would
\napply to a case where the award of the Land
\nAcquisition Collector had been made much prior to the
\namendment in question?\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhether the Judgment of this Court in Krishi Utpadan
\nMandi Samiti’s case can be held to be correctly
\ndecided?\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhether at all it would be appropriate for this Court to
\nlay down the law and yet not to interfere with the
\njudgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh
\nHigh Court with regard to the quantum of compensation
\nawarded?\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tWhether the petition under Article 32 can be
\nentertained for deciding the validity of un-amended
\nprovisions of Section 25?\n<\/p>\n
So far as the first question is concerned, on a plain reading of
\nthe same, it is difficult for us to hold that it is procedural in
\nnature.\t On the other hand, it unequivocally limits the power
\nof the Court on a reference being made to award
\ncompensation, more than the amount claimed by the
\nclaimants and less than the amount awarded by the Collector.
\nIn other words, the substantive right of a claimant who has
\nmade a claim to the compensation, pursuant to a notice under
\nSection 9, cannot be more than the amount claimed and under
\nany circumstances, would not be less than the amount which
\nthe Land Acquisition Collector has awarded under Section
\n11, since that award of the Collector is the offer that is made
\nto the claimant.  In course of the arguments, Mr. Rao, the
\nlearned counsel for the claimants submitted before us that
\nsub-section (5) of Section 25, as it stood prior to its
\namendment gives sufficient power to the reference Court to
\nentertain a claim if the claimant had omitted to make such
\nclaim pursuant to notice issued under Section 9 and
\ndetermine the compensation on that.  Consequently, Mr. Rao
\ncontends that there should not be any embargo on the power
\nof the Court even if the claimant makes a claim pursuant to
\nthe notice issued under Section 9.  We are unable to accept
\nthis submission inasmuch as sub-section (5) of Section 25
\ncontemplates a situation where the claimant for sufficient
\nreason had omitted to make a claim and the reference Court
\non being satisfied about the same may permit the claimant to
\nmake a claim. But the unambiguous and clear language of
\nsub-section (1) of Section 25, as it stood prior to the
\namendment, makes it explicitly clear that if the claimant has
\nmade a claim pursuant to a notice under Section 9, then the
\nCourt would be incompetent to award any amount exceeding
\nthe said claim.\t In our considered opinion, sub-section (5) of
\nSection 25 will be of no assistance to the claimants-
\nrespondents in the present case.  Incidently, we may deal
\nwith the submission of Mr. Rao that the amount claimed was
\nby the lawyer and not by the claimant himself and therefore,
\ncannot be held to be claim by the claimants, pursuant to
\nnotice under Section 9 of the Act.  On examining the records
\nof the case, we do not find any justification to entertain this
\nsubmission, inasmuch even in the application made for
\nreference under Section 18, the claimant had not taken such a
\nstand.\tIt would, therefore, be futile for us to entertain this
\ncontention and hold that the claim made by the claimants
\nthrough his lawyer cannot be held to be a claim by the
\nclaimants.  This Court in the very case of Krishi Utpadan
\nMandi Samiti, 2000(7) SCC 756, on which the learned
\ncounsel for the respondents had placed reliance,  considered
\nthe provisions of Section 25 and held that the said provision
\ncan never be held to be procedural and it is substantive in
\nnature.\t We approve of the said conclusion and hold that the
\nprovision of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act is
\nsubstantive in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the second question, it is a well settled
\nprinciple of construction that a substantive provision cannot
\nbe retrospective in nature unless the provision itself indicates
\nthe same.  The amended provision of Section 25 nowhere
\nindicates that the same would have any retrospective effect.
\nConsequently, therefore, it would apply to all acquisitions
\nmade subsequent to 24.9.84, the date on which Act 68\/1984
\ncame into force.  The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill of
\n1982 was introduced in Parliament on 30th of April, 1982 and
\ncame into operation with effect from 24th of September,
\n1984.  Under the amendment in question, the provisions of
\nSection 23(2) dealing with solatium was amended and
\nSection 30(2) of the amended Act provided  that the
\nprovisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Principal
\nAct  as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 shall apply and
\nshall  be deemed to have applied, also to and in relation to
\nany award made by the Collector or Court or to any order
\npassed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against
\nany such award under the provisions of the principal Act,
\nafter the 30th April, 1982 and before the commencement of
\nthe Act.  It is because of the aforesaid provision, the question
\ncropped up as to whether in respect of an award passed by
\nthe Collector between the two dates, the amended provision
\nwill have an application or not and that question has been
\nanswered by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in
\nUnion of India and anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh, 1989(2)
\nS.C.C. 754.   Sub-section (2) of Section 30 has at all no
\nreference to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act.  In  that
\nview of the matter, question of applicability of the amended
\nprovisions of Section 25 of the Act to an award of the
\nCollector made earlier to the amendment and the matter was
\npending in appeal, does not arise.  In our considered opinion,
\nthe amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, not being
\nretrospective in nature, the case in hand would be governed
\nby the unamended provisions of Section 25 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the third question, we find that on a review
\napplication being filed, this court relying upon the case of
\nUnion of India vs. Raghubir Singh,<\/a> 1989(2) SCC 754, held
\nthat the amended provisions would be applicable under
\nwhich there is no restriction that the award would only be
\nupto the amount claimed by the claimant.  In Raghubir
\nSingh’s case, the Constitution Bench was dealing with sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 30 which had got absolutely no
\nrelevance or connection with the provisions of Section 25 of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act.  For the reasons already indicated,
\nwe have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the
\nenunciation of law made by this Court in Krishi Utpadan
\nMandi Samiti’s case, in para (17) of the Judgment relying
\nupon the case of Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh,<\/a> is not
\ncorrect and to that extent the aforesaid case must be held not
\nto have been correctly decided.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the next question as to whether this Court
\nwould interfere with the impugned judgment of the Division
\nBench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court or not, the answer
\nwould depend on the provision of law which was under
\nconsideration and whether there was any ambiguity in the
\nlaw which is being decided for the first time.\tIt is no doubt
\ntrue that in Teherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammad,
\n1999(2) S.C.C. 635, this Court has held that even if the
\nspecial leave has been granted under Article 136, unless and
\nuntil, it is shown that a substantial and grave injustice will be
\ncaused if no interference is made out, the Court may refuse to
\ninterfere with the judgment under challenge.  This principle
\nwould mainly depend upon the facts of each case which
\ncomes up for decision before the Court.\t To the case in hand,
\nit is difficult for us to apply the aforesaid principle.  On the
\ndate the land was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1)
\nof the Act, the un-amended provision of Section 25 was in
\nforce and it was made known to all concerned that the
\nreference Court will have no power to award the amount in
\nexcess of the amount claimed by the claimants.\tNot only the
\nlanguage of the Statute was clear and unambiguous, but also
\nthe question was not res- integra, in view of the decision of
\nthis Court in Dadoo Yogendrenath Singh vs. The
\nCollector, AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 1128.  Until the statutory rigour
\ncontained in sub-section (1) of Section 25 stood obliterated
\nby the amended provisions of Section 25 and until all
\nrestraints and embargoes placed for the Court stood totally
\nliberated,  the reference Court had no jurisdiction to award
\nthe amount in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant.
\nSuch being the position of law, we are unable to persuade
\nourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Rao to hold
\nthat it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with
\nthe judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
\nHigh Court.  In our considered opinion, the High Court had
\nno jurisdiction on the law as it stood, to award any amount in
\nexcess of the amount claimed and in the case in hand in
\nexcess of Rs.30,000\/- per acre and, therefore, the principles
\nenunciated in the decision of this Court in Teherakhatoon
\nvs. Salambin Mohammad, 1999(2) S.C.C. 635, cannot be
\napplied to the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the last submission is concerned, we are afraid
\nthat the validity of unamended provision of Section 25 of the
\nLand Acquisition Act which was there on the statute book
\nsince inception can at all be examined at a point of time when
\nthat provision no longer subsists since, 24.9.84, the date on
\nwhich Act 68\/1984 came into force.  We, therefore, decline
\nto entertain the petition under Article 32 at the behest of the
\nclaimants.  In the net result, therefore, these civil appeals are
\nallowed.  The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra
\nPradesh High Court is set aside and it is held that the
\nclaimants-respondents would be entitled to compensation for
\nthe acquired land @ Rs.30,000\/- per acre, which they claimed
\npursuant to service of notice under Section 9.\tThe writ
\npetition filed by the claimants stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t       ……………………………………J.
\n\t\t\t\t\t  (G.B.\t PATTANAIK)<\/p>\n
\t\t……………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   (S.N. PHUKAN)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t    ..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t    (S.N. VARIAVA)
\nFebruary 14,  2002.\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan, S.N. Variava CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9521-22 of 1995 PETITIONER: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM-DSWO, AP Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. B.V. REDDY & SONS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/02\/2002 BENCH: G.B. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Land Acquisition Officer ... vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Land Acquisition Officer ... vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-09T23:48:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\\\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T23:48:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3543,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\",\"name\":\"The Land Acquisition Officer ... vs M\\\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T23:48:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\\\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Land Acquisition Officer ... vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Land Acquisition Officer ... vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-09T23:48:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T23:48:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002"},"wordCount":3543,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002","name":"The Land Acquisition Officer ... vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T23:48:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-land-acquisition-officer-vs-ms-b-v-reddy-sons-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Land Acquisition Officer … vs M\/S. B.V. Reddy & Sons on 14 February, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}