APHC010158632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 76 OF 2016 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and Decree passed in O.P No. 15 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni Kurnool District dated 08.10.2012 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND P Noor Basha, Son of P Hussain Sab, H.No. 9/931 Maratigeri Adoni ...Respondent/Claimant iA NO: 4 OF 2016(LAASMP 351 OF 201 fi) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings including execution in EP No.21/2014 in OP No. 15/2009 dated 08.10.2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni Kurnool District pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following: 1 APHC010136482016 il IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE T PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No: 76 of 2016 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni. ...APPELLANT AND P.Noor Basha, S/o.P.Hussain Sab, H.No.9/931, Maratigeri Adoni. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: -None- f 2 The Court made the following Order: The present appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the Judgment t and Decree in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 2009 dated 08.10.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. 2. Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for appeals for the appellant / Referring Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that for providing house sites to the weaker sections of Adoni Municipality, a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.52.42 cents situated in the Parvathapuram Village of Adoni Mandal was issued; An extent of Ac.1.46 cents situated in Survey No.44 of the respondent / claimant was part of the said acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, fixed the market value of the land @ Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the respondent / claimant, received compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming market value @ Rs.2,75,000/- per acre. The Reference Court, after considering the matter with reference to the 4. oral and documentary evidence, fixed,the market value @ Rs.2,75,000/- per acre. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, inter alia, contended that the order of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,10,000/- to Rs.2,75,000/- is unjust, without any valid basis and as such \ 3 the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the Land Acquisition t Officer, after considering the relevant aspects, fixed the just and reasonable compensation @ Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre and the learned Reference Court without appreciating the matter in the correct perspective, erroneously enhanced the same. He further contends that the learned Reference Court, went wrong in not deducting the developmental charges atleast 50% as the land acquired was for the purpose of providing house sites. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, in the connected appeals, the learned counsel for the claimants, hnade submissions to,sustain the order under appeal. He contended that the learned Reference Court, after due consideration of the " oral as well as documentary evidence, enhanced the market value by assigning cogent reasons. He submits that in fact, the acquired land fetches more value than claimed by the respondent as the subject matter area was surrounded by lands which were acquired for the purpose of house sites and Government had already constructed the houses in the area adjacent to the acquired land. He also submits that though the respondent had exhibited Exs.AI and A2 i.e.. Sale Deeds dated 03.08.2007 and 20.04.2005, which are much prior to the Section 4 (1) Notification dated 15.09.2008, wherein land of an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Survey No.137 was sold for Rs.6,70,000/- which • works out to Rs. 12,18,100/- per acre and Ac.1.17 cents in Survey Nos. 138 and 135 was sold for Rs.5,80,000/- i.e., about Rs.5,00,000/- per acre respectively, the learned Reference Court, instead of taking the said sale ,/ 4 transactions into consideration, and fixing the market value, had relied on i Ex.A3 i.e., Consent Award dated 16.04.2008. He submits that the respondent owing to financial constraints had not preferred appeal. He submits that the said consent Award was in respect of the lands which are nearer to the lands under acquisition and forms part of the Notification in question. The respondent did not agree for the rate fixed by the District Negotiation Committee which fixed the rate of Rs.2,75,000/- per acre inclusive of all benefits and sought reference against the Award in respect of the lands acquired from the respondent. He also contends that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to deduction is not tenable as i the learned Reference Court keeping in view of the location of the subject I matter lands and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Valliyammal and another v. Spl.Tahsildar'' etc., felt it appropriate to deduct 10% towards I developmental charges and the learned Reference Court had not committed any illegality and the order under challenge does not warrant interference by this Court on any of the grounds urged by the learned Government Pleader. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for 7. consideration is : Whether the fixation of market value by the learned Reference Court is unjust, unreasonable or excessive and therefore, warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ^ 2011(6) ALD 13 (SC) 5 At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that there is no dispute with reference to the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification and the purpose of } the acquisition i.e., for provision of house sites to the weaker sections. It is also not in dispute that prior to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 15.09.2008, some of the lands which are nearer to the subject matter lands are acquired with consent and an Award in respect of the same was passed on 16.04.2008. 8. Be that as it may. In support of the claim for enhancement / fixation of the market value to Rs.2,75,000/- from Rs. 1,10,000/- as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer^ before the Reference Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.AI to A3 were 9. marked. The Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Award dated 26.02.2009 was marked as Ex.BI. As seen from the material on record, Exs.AI and A2 were referred to at 10. S.Nos.36 and 9 of the sale statistics. However, it would appear that the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the said transactions on the premise that they were bit sales and were in developed area, far away from the land under acquisition. But Ex.A2 was in respect of Ac.1.17 cents and not a bit sale, wherein the land was sold for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, about three years five months prior to the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. If the said transaction is taken into consideration, the respondent would be entitled for more compensation. However, no appeal or cross objections was filed and the respondent was satisfied with the compensation as enhanced up to Rs.2,75,000/-. In fact, as per the material on record, R.W.1 / 6 in his cross examination, admitted that the lands in question were situated near industrial area and adjacent the land situated in Siruguppa-Adoni road. He alsq admitted that a bye-pass road passes ’near the acquired land, a summer storage water tank was situated at a distance one furlong from the acquired lands and houses were constructed in the acquired lands. He categorically admitted that one year prior to the Ex.B1-Award in respect of the j subject matter lands, a consent Award vide Ex.A3 dated 16,04.2008 was passed and the subject matter lands are nearer to the lands acquired under the consent award. It is not in dispute that as per the Consent Award, the rate • of the land was fixed at Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, inclusive of all benefits. There is a time gap of about 10 months between the Consent Award and the Award passed in respect of the subject matter lands. The learned Reference Court i as observed earlier, instead of taking Ex.A2 Sale transaction and the admissions, made by the R.W.1, 'took Ex.A3-Consent Award into consideration. It opined that when a similar land was acquired with the consent of the land owners about one year prior and the market value fixed at Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, the claimant is entitled for 10% increase in market value per annum and at the same time also opined that 10% is to be ' deducted towards developmental charges and accordingly, fixed the market value in respect of the lands under acquisition at Rs.2,75,000/- Such a fixation in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be viewed / was per acre. as unjust or lacking in cogent reasons. Though the learned Government Pleader for Appeals sought to impress upon this‘Court that deductions of atleast 50% 7 towards development charges have to be appreciate the same. The lands charges as adopted by the Reference Court made, this Court is not inclined to are situated in a village and developmental are sufficient. " 11. On examining the matter in its entirety, this Court less valid grounds to interfere with the The point is answered accordingly. In the result, the Appeal fails Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications dismissed. see no reasons, much order passed by the Reference Court. 12. and the same is dismissed. No pending, if any, shall also stand costs. Sd/- E KAIWESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil if any) 2. Two CCS to the Government i Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section Amaravathi 4. Two CD Copies Judge(Senior Division), Adoni Kurnool District (with records Pleader for Appeals, High Court of Andhra High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Stu nm \ \, ' HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 DECREE LAAS No.76/2016 t =( 2 2 SEP 2025 rrents«cti5ixv5 DISMISSING THE APPEAL APHC010158632016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 76 OF 2016 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND P Noor Basha, Son of P Hussain Sab, H.No. 9/931, Maratigeri Adoni ...Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and Decree passed in O.P No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District dated 08.10.2012 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondents. J This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in the appeal. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// vV- SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Adoni, Kurnool District 2. Two CD Copies ¥ / HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS No.76/2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL