APHC010178292009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.201 of 2009 Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A. Act, against the Order and Decree dated 24-01-2009 made in L.A.O.P.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District at Peddapuram. Between: Bayyapuneedi Surya Shiva Shanker, S/o. Sri B.Vinayaka Rao, Occ; Employee, R/o. Flat No. 305, DBV Raju Enclave, Anala Venkata Apparao Road, Walkers Road Junction, Rajahmundry-533106. ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, PLIS Unit - 2 Peddapuram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER : SRI K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR APPEALS The Court made the following : Counsel for the Petitioner APHC010178292009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No. 201 of 2009 Between: 1.BAYYAPUNEEDI SURYA SHIVA SHANKER, S/0. SRI B.VINAYAKA RAO EMPLOYEE R/0. FLAT NO. 305, DBV RAJU ENCLAVE, ANALA VENKATA APPARAO ROAD, WALKERS ROAD JUNCTION, ...APPELLANT AND 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, Land Acquisition Officer, PLIS Unit - 2, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT To set aside the decree and judgment dated 24-1-2009 made in L.A.O.P.No. 26 of 2007 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District at Peddapuram by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 98,000/- per acre to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre by allowing the appeal with costs and pass such other order and further order or orders in the circumstances of the case which the appellant is entitled to. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.KB RAMANNADORA Counsel for the Respondent: 1.GP FOR APPEALS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.201 OF 2009 JUDGMENT' (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rad) Conscientiously, the present Land Acquisition Appeal No.201 of 2009 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, hereafter called as ‘Act’) is filed dissatisfied with order of Reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.26 of 2007 Peddapuram, dated 24.01.2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, in confirming the compensation Rs.98,000/- per acre and paid an amount of Rs.92,120/- (Rupees ninety two thousand one hundred and twenty only), as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.43 of 2006 dated 19.12.2006 on reference under Section 18 of the Act by the LAO. The land of the appellant in an extent of Ac.0-94 cents of land out of an extent of Ac.4- 38 cents bifurcating the land into two separate bits in Sy.No.219 /3 of J.Kothura Village in Jaggamepeta Mandalam was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Distributory Canal under Pushkar Lift Irrigation Scheme (PLIS) Unit-2. The possession was taken 15.03.2006 and the Section 4(1) notification was issued on 20.12.2005. raised the following grounds: The appellant 2 (1) The trial Court failed to see that the land in question is very fertile land and both commercially and agriculturally viable for any purpose and there was shops established adjacent to the said property and therefore ought to have granted compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre or value per Sq.yd. (2) The trial Court was not justified in declining the relief of enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre which was in existence by the date of notification. (3) The trial Court failed to see the difference between the registration value and the market value, as it is known fact that the registration value is always less than the market value and ought to have granted the compensation as prayed by the appellant. (4) The trial Court failed to see that the land acquired for the purpose of canal, which passing through middle of the fields of the appellant making the agricultural land into two pieces and it adversely affected the remaining portion of the said land and it would infertile land and incurring heavy amounts in cultivating the pieces lying on either side of the canal and therefore in view of Section 23, since there was considerable damage to the claimant, the lower Court ought to have been fixed the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- as per the existing market value. i 2. The trial Court has discarded the evidence of P.W.2 who testified that he sold his land at the rate of Rs.5,70,000/- per acre on the ground that sale deed land is situated at the distance of one kilometre from the present acquired land. The present appeal is filed to grant compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000,000/- per acre. And it is trite law under Section 101 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proving fact always lies upon the person who asserts. Now the burden is upon the appellant claimant to prove the land value as Rs.8,00,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition. 3. In order to prove the land value, the appellant - claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and filed and relied on Ex.AI sale deed dated 28.09.2005 in Sy.No.166/1 of J.Kothuru Village sold at the rate of Rs. 1,99,000/- per acre, except the appellant and another witness was examined on behalf of the claimant and the Referring Officer was examined on behalf of the State. 4. The Reference Court has discarded the Ex.AI certified copy of the sale deed on two counts: (1) that sale deed land is situated at the distance of one kilometre from the present acquired land; and (2) the admission made by the appellant the land under Ex.AI is more potential 4 and it is located by the side of Gokavaram road and is surrounded by the houses, Commercial shops and establishments and the land owned by the appellant, who is the claimant in this case, is not located within the developed area. 5. The paramount contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the land was acquired for the construction of a canal that runs through the center of the appellant’s fields. This acquisition has effectively divided the appellant’s agricultural land into two distinct sections or into two separate slices or chunks, negatively impacting the remaining portion of their total area of 4.38 acres in Survey No.219/03. The counsel further argues that the respondent failed to consider Section 23 of the Act when determining compensation, and explained the injustice suffered by the appellant. Consequently, prayed to grant compensation for the loss sustained or incurred by the appellant. Further, the counsel stated that this issue was raised in the claim statement when the award was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act; however. the Reference Court did not address this contention. Therefore, it prayed to allow the appeal and compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. 6. POINT FOR CONSIDERATinN- For better appreciation of the case it is necessary to extract the Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Sections 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under; "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.-- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the 1 [notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; 6 fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration underSection 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. Matters to be considered in determining compensation: (1) In 7. determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification underSection 4, sub-section (1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof. Section 49 of the Act deals with two contingencies. They are: 8. (i) cases where what is sought to be acquired is only a part of any house, manufactory or other building: and 7 d(ii) cases where a claim for compensation under the head severance” under clause thirdly of Section 23(1) arises. On reviewing the Reference Court order warily, the appellant’s specific argument under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act has not 9. been addressed by the Reference Court. 10. Evidence is required to answer the issue raised by the appellant’s counsel. The quantum of damages would depend on the evidence of the parties and thus, the same can be settled only after adducing evidence. For assessing the actual damage, the matter has to be put to re-trial and the appeal cannot be ordered by this Court without assessing the damages basing on the document Ex.AI dated 28.09.2005. 11. Hence, the appeal is disposed of, remanding the matter to the Reference Court to reconsider the issue based on the points raised by the appellant - claimant in the claim statement. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. And it is needless to observe that as the Criginal Petition pertains to year 2005, the Court shall make its endeavour for expeditious disposal of the matter, not later than six I 8 months from the date of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Peddapuram, East Godavari District, (with records ) 2. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri K B Ramanna Dora, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. (to despatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies at TK TAC (■ L HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 JUDGMENT LAAS No.201 of 2009 *1 13 AUG 2025 1^ CO DISPOSING OF THE LAAS