APHC010123702009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No. 16/2009 Between: Vadde Papanna (died) Per Lr A- 2 & 3 and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR APPEALS 2. I MAAMU VANI The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) A portion of land admeasuring acres 22-40 cents was acquired for the purpose of formation of Tank Bund foreshore submersion and surplus course in Brahmanakotkur village. Notification under section 4(1) was issued on 09.11.1983. Award No.09/1985 was passed on 09.09.1985. Advance possession was taken on 03.03.1983. An extent of Ac.5-47 cents of land of original claimant by name Vadde Chinna Ramana was acquired for the afore said purpose. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer („LAO‟, for short) has passed the award 09/1985 dated 09.09.1985 and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.6000/- per acre after taking into consideration 26 sale transactions of land in respect of Brahmanakotkur village for a period of three years, the sales occurred in Sy.No.210/2B ranging between Rs.1987/- to Rs.5,000/- considering the time lag between the date of sale 21.02.1983 to the publication of draft notification dated 09.11.1983. 3. Due to inadequate fixation of market value by the LAO the appellant/claimant has requested to LAO to refer the award to the civil court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („Act‟ for short) for determination of fair compensation. 4. The reference was registered as LAOP No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandikotkur. After answering the reference the compensation of Rs.6000/- as fixed by the LAO was confirmed vide order dated 03.06.2008. Reference Court relied on the judgments of Apex Court in the case titled as Kanwar Singh and 3 others vs. Union of India1 and a decision reported in Special Deputy Collector (LA) HLC Ananthapur vs Kakarala Yerappa @ Yerri Swamy2 for the proposition “while determining the compensation and fixation of market value the fact that higher compensation is awarded to land of adjoining villages, is not a ground to make a claim for higher compensation by claimants of neighbouring village, unless it is proved that both the lands are having similar advantages and that the situation and potentiality of the land in the two different villages are same.” 5. Assailing the fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs.6000/- per acre in LAOP No.60 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandikotkur, the present appeal is filed seeking to award compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre by adopting methodology particularly capitalisation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant claimant Sri C.Prakash Reddy would contend that the Reference Court erred by failing to cite Ex.B2 sale deed dated 25.05.1993 registered for Rs.25,000/-per acre and the admission of the PW1 (hereafter called as PW1 witness examined on behalf of Land Acquisition Department), who acknowledged that the lands situated in Brahamanakotkur and Damagatala are similar types of Black cotton soil lands, and the claimants raised tobacco, cotton, and groundnut crops which indicate the potentiality of the lands and urged that the Reference Court ought to have been adopted a capitalisation methodology to fix a fair compensation. Additionally it is stated that failure to pay adequate 1 1998 (6) ALT SC 27 2 1997 (4) ALT 200 (DB) 4 compensation for the deprivation of property would constitute violation of Article 300A of Constitution of India. 7. The reference court disregarded the claimant's evidence because he failed to provide evidence of actual costs incurred for crop cultivation, and the said sale deed was not taken into consideration because it was believed to belong to Damagatla village, despite the admission of PW 1 that the land in both Brahamanakotkur and Damagatla village had similar potentiality. In support of the proposition that "the compensation can be fixed on yield basis and taking into other circumstances such as potentiality and utility off the land and can award a just compensation," the learned counsel for appellant has cited the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, A.P., vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao and others3. The learned counsel has also taken the Court to the statement of PW1 in support of the stand that the lands in Brahamanakotkur and Damagatla Villages have similar potentiality. 8. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would say that the Ex.B2 pertains to Damagtala village and the land was acquired in Brahamanakotkur village and the both the LAO and the reference has rightly fixed the market value and pleaded that no interference is required by this Court. 9. The reference court ought to have adopted a methodology to fix a fair compensation in the absence of documentary or oral evidence, having observed basing upon the statement of PW1 that the lands are potential and claimants are growing crops like tobacco, cotton, and 3 (2007) 3 SCC 526 5 groundnut and fixed the compensation on yield basis instead of disregarding the claimant evidence because he failed to provide evidence of actual costs incurred for crop cultivation. Further PW1 has also stated / deposed that the lands in Brahamanakotkur are similar to Damagatla Village. As per Ex.B2 registered sale deed dated 25.05.1983 purchased by the father of the RW2 (Claimant) the rate of the land is Rs.25,500/- per acre which is prior to Section 4(1) Notification dated 25.11.1983. 10. The Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Rama Rana4, held that “compensation can be awarded to the claimant on yield basis when there was no sufficient evidence as to the income from agriculture and further observed that it is common knowledge that expenditure is involved in raising and harvesting the crop and on an average, 50% of the value of the crop realized would be spent towards cultivation expenses. Deduction of 1/3rd, in the circumstances, was improper in determining the compensation of the land on the basis of yield. 12. Therefore, applying the methodology of yield basis and relying on the admission of PW1 regarding the similarity and potentiality of the land in Brahamanakotkur and Damagatla Villages, this Court deems it approximate to fix the market value basing upon the Ex.B2 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre as claimed by the appellant claimant in this appeal. After deducting 50% for cultivation and harvesting the market value is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Needless to observer that the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4 4 (1987) 2 SCC 693 6 (1) Notification. We also make it clear that the claimant shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. However no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.04.2025 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.16 OF 2009 Date:24.04.2025 siva