APHC010182972009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition S.R.B.C., Nandyal. AND Ediga Ayyanna (died) by L.Rs Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant 2. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.2.2006 in O.P. No.248 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. For the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC), an extent of Acs.21.79 cents situated sought to be acquired. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.5.1984. In so far as the lands of the respondents/claimants i.e., an extent of Ac.1.74 cents covered by IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY 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.416 of 2009 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, … Appellant Ediga Ayyanna (died) by L.Rs Ediga Thimmakka and others … Respondent for the Appellant : Mr.T.S.Rayalu, G.P. for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.M.Radha Krishna The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant–State. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.2.2006 in O.P. No.248 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. For the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC), an extent of Acs.21.79 cents situated in Pamulapadu Village was sought to be acquired. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.5.1984. In so far as the lands of the respondents/claimants i.e., an extent of Ac.1.74 cents covered by [3526] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Appellant Respondents Mr.T.S.Rayalu, G.P. for Appeals Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.2.2006 in O.P. No.248 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. For the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal in Pamulapadu Village was sought to be acquired. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.5.1984. In so far as the lands of the respondents/claimants i.e., an extent of Ac.1.74 cents covered by 2 LAAS_416_2009 orchard and an extent of Ac.0.92 cents of landed property are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the said lands at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Claiming enhancement of the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/ claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Reference Court after due consideration of the material on record, fixed the compensation in respect of Ac.1.74 cents covered by orchard @ Rs.45,000/- per acre and the other extent of the landed property i.e., Ac.0.92 cents @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. 3. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that the said fixation is highly excessive and without any valid basis. He submits that the reason assigned by the learned Reference Court for enhancing the market value is without any rationale and as such warrants interference by this Court. 4. On consideration of the submissions made, the point that arises for adjudication is as to “Whether the enhancement of the compensation by the Reference Court is without valid basis, not just or reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” Point: 5. Before the Reference Court, the respondents/claimants in support of their case examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the Referring Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The details of yield particulars of the subject matter lands prepared by P.W.5 were marked as Ex.X.1. 6. The learned Reference Court, on consideration of the matter more particularly with reference to the evidence of P.W.4 the Forest Range Officer and P.W.5 the Assistant Director of Horticulture, had discussed in 3 LAAS_416_2009 detail with regard to the number of trees i.e., Citrus, Coconut, Sapota, Teak etc., and opined that in the absence of any documentary evidence of a comparable site, the compensation on the basis of the Report of the Assistant Director of Horticulture (Ex.B.2) can be taken into consideration and thus adopted the multiplier ‘5’ to arrive at the market value of Ac.1.74 cents of land covered by Orchard @ Rs.45,000/-. 7. In so far as the other extent of Ac.0.92 cents is concerned, which is adjacent to the Orchards/Garden land, the learned Reference Court took into consideration the potentiality of the land and fixed the market value @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Though the learned Government Pleader sought to impress upon this Court that the order of the Reference Court is without any valid basis or rationale, on a due consideration of the order under challenge with reference to the material on record, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. The learned Reference Court has assigned cogent reasons for adopting the multiplier method and this Court see no illegality in the order under appeal. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the order under challenge. The point is, accordingly, answered. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J July 24, 2025 vasu