1 APHC010199592011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3495] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOS: 1064 & 1101 OF 2011 AND I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13009 of 2012) & I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13011 of 2012) LAAS No.1064 of 2011: Between: The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) HNSS Unit- IV, Kurnool ...APPELLANT AND CAB Srikanth ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.Mr.T.S.Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Mr.K. Rathangapani Reddy 2 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J) The present appeals and the Cross-objections arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 27.06.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in LAOP Nos.37 of 2007 and 26 of 2007 & Batch. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. T.S. Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals and Mr. K. RathangaPani Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants-cross-objectors. 3) Before dealing with the relevant facts and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it may be appropriate to mention here that about seven OPs were disposed of by the Reference Court vide common order dated 27.06.2011. In so far as LAOP Nos.37 of 2007 and 26 of 2007, Cross Objections were filed. In so far as LAOP No.24 of 2007, it is represented that though cross objections were filed, without noticing the same, the appeal filed by the State vide LAAS No.1153 of 2011 was dismissed on 10.03.2023. In so far as LAOP No.22 of 2007, 13 of 2007, 15 of 2007 and 16 of 2007, no cross objections were filed and the appeals filed by the Government viz., LAAS Nos. 1061; 1062, 1122 of 2011 and 27 of 2012 against the orders passed in the said OPs were dismissed on 17.10.2024. In view of the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Government, the present Appeals of the Government are also liable to be dismissed. However, the cross- objections of the claimants are required to be examined independently and just and reasonable compensation has to be determined. 3 4) For the purpose of Handrineeva Sujala Sravanthi – Unit IV, Kurnool (for short “HNSS Project”), an extent of Ac.51.00 acres in Sy.Nos.223/1, 224/1 of B. Thandrapadu village was sought to be acquired. The possession of the lands was taken over by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). On 27.05.2006, the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued and after conducting enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer (for short “the LAO”) vide Award No.30/2006-07, dated 20.11.2006 fixed the market value of the lands at the rate of 65,000/- per acre and Rs.75,000/- per acre, by classifying the same into Category I and II. 5) Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimants / land owners received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court, they made a claim for Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs.25 Lakhs per acre towards compensation. They examined RWs 1 and 2 i.e., claimants in O.P.No.37 and 24 of 2007 and got marked Exs. B1 to B8. On behalf of the Referring Officer, PW 1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. The learned Reference Court after considering the matter, enhanced the compensation from Rs.65,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The State, aggrieved by the said fixation of the Market value at the Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, filed LAAS Nos.1064 & 1101 of 2011, and the claimants / respondents filed cross-objections, but restricted their claim to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. 4 6) As stated earlier, the appeals preferred by the State against the common order were already dismissed and therefore the appeals in so far as the State are concerned need not be examined and the same are dismissed in the light of the Orders in LAAS No.1153 of 2011 dated 10.03.2023. 7) Mr.K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the cross-objectors inter alia contended that the lands in question are abutting the Kurnool Municipal Corporation and touching the N.H.18, that the same would fetch more than Rs.25 Lakhs per acre, however the cross-objectors are restricting the claim to Rs.8 Lakhs per acre. He submits that the acquired lands are surrounded by several educational institutions like Kesava Reddy High School, Safa Engineering & Pharmacy Colleges, Pulla Reddy Engineering College etc., and building activity is increasing day by day and there are several residential colonies near the acquired land. He submits that the subject matter land is having high potentiality for house plots and the Reference Court is not justified in fixing the market value of a meagre sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. He submits that to substantiate their claim, the cross-objectors/claimants had relied on several registered sale deeds, but the learned Reference Court without assigning any reasons had discarded the same on the premise that the persons connected to the sale deeds were not examined by the claimants/cross-objectors to prove the contents of the said documents. He submits that the view taken by the learned Reference Court is not sustainable in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Land 5 Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v V. Narasaiah1; Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd., v Purya and Others2 followed by different Division Benches of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M.Butchi Reddy and Ors., v Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Nalgonda and Ors.,3; etc. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Dheeraj Singh v Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors.,4 and Mohammad Raofuddin v Land Acquisition Officer5. 8) He seeks enhancement of compensation and allow the cross- objections. 9) Learned Government Pleader for appeals on the other hand made submissions to the effect that the cross-objectors / claimants have not adduced any evidence to establish that the lands in question are proximate to National Highway or having more potentiality. He also contends that the value of the lands in the same village may not fetch the same market value and it all depends upon various factors like location, connectivity etc. In any event, he submits that as the order of the Reference Court in the connected cases is confirmed and the market value as fixed by the Reference Court was not interfered with, the cross-objectors / claimants are not entitled to any further enhancement as sought for. Accordingly, he urges for dismissal of the cross- objections. 1 (2001) 3 SCC 530 2 (2004) 8 SCC 270 3 2005 (1) ALT 226 (DB) 4 Civil Appeal No.___ of 2023 dated 04.07.2023 5 (2009) 14 SCC 367 6 10) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On a due consideration of the matter, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the fixation of the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in the light of the orders passed in LAAS No.1153 of 2011 has to be confirmed or the same has to be enhanced, in the light of the cross-objections filed by the claimants?” 11) Before dealing with the point under consideration, it may be noted that there is no dispute with regard to the extent of land acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 27.05.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the appeals preferred by the State against enhancement of compensation from Rs.65,000/- to Rs1,50,000/- per acre were dismissed by this Court. Dismissal of the appeals of the State, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not preclude the cross-objectors / claimants to pursue the matter for enhancement of the compensation, more particularly when it is not the case of the State that while deciding the appeal LAAS No.1153 of 2011 filed by the State, the cross-objections were also examined and thereafter, a comprehensive order was passed dismissing the cross-objections also. A perusal of the order passed in LAOP 1153 of 2011 dated 10.03.2023 would make it clear that there is no reference to the cross-objections of the claimants. It appears that the attention of the Court was not drawn to the fact that cross-objections were filed in the said appeal and as such, there was no occasion to the learned Bench to deal with the aspect of cross-objections. 7 12) In Dheeraj Singh case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with an appeal filed against the orders of the High Court of Allahabad, wherein cross-objections were overlooked and an order was passed. In para No.18 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows: “18. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the issues raised by the appellants in their cross objections have not been considered by the High Court. No mention of the cross objections filed by the appellants herein have been found in the said judgment. While the High Court has given a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in the appeal and the both the lower court orders, however, the cross objections in specific, finds no discussion, much less even a mention.” 13) Following the decision in Jitendra Prasad Nayak v Anant Kumar Sah and Anr.,6 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order under appeal holding inter alia that the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross-objections filed by the appellants therein. 14) In the light of the above said decisions and the facts of the present case, the objections raised by the learned Government Pleader merits no acceptance and the same are accordingly overruled. 15) Coming to the aspect of fixation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the cross- objectors claim for more compensation, this Court is required to examine the oral and documentary evidence on record. In support of their case, the claimants/ cross-objectors were examined as RWs 1 and 2. In his chief affidavit, RW 1 categorically stated about the location of the subject matter 6 (1998) 9 SCC 383 8 lands, that they are touching the NH-18 and surrounded by colleges, educational institutions as also other reputed institutions. He deposed that acquired land is just 3 kms,, from the Kurnool Municipality, having great potentiality for house plots and the demand for house plots is increasing manifold. He also stated that about Ac.39-00 cents of land was acquired by the Government adjoining the lands of the claimants for the purpose of AP Housing Board in the year 2002, and the Market value was confirmed by the High Court at the rate of Rs.8 Lakhs per acre. He deposed that the several transactions in respect of the adjacent lands would go to show that the lands in question were fetching a reasonable amount of Rs.18,000/- per cent as on the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. RW 2 also deposed in similar lines. 16) In the cross-examination of RW1, nothing worth mentioning was elicited to the effect that the subject matter lands are far away from the NH-18. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 to B6 sale deeds are concocted. He also denied the suggestion that the Kesava institutions are 2 Kms., away from NH 18. In the cross-examination, he categorically stated that Safa Engineering college and Narayana Residential College are situated on the eastern side of NH 18 side, which is opposite to the acquired land of the claimant and that the RTO office and the said institutions are situated 2 kms., from his acquired land. While denying various suggestions in the cross- examination, even RW 2 supported the case of RW 1 and categorically stated that the acquired land is adjacent to NH 18 and Safa Engineering College is 9 situated opposite to his acquired land. He had also denied the suggestion that there are no residential houses or colonies surrounding his acquired land. Thus, the oral evidence on record would support the case of the cross- objectors/claimants that the acquired lands are proximate / situate near the National High way. 17) It may be relevant to mention here that in the cross-examination PW 1 while denying the suggestion that the distance between the acquired lands and NH 18 is 100 feet, he stated that the lands are situated at a distance of 1 km. Even the learned Reference Court had noted the admissions of PW 1 that Kesavareddy High School, Safa Engineering college and other educational institutions were situated nearby the acquired lands and the claimants may get higher market value than the market value fixed by the LAO, if they alienate the same or make use of the lands for house sites. While taking into consideration of the said aspects, the learned Reference Court however, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. It has not given much weight to Exs.B1 to B6 documents, which are sale deeds in respect of the lands within the vicinity of the acquired lands. The Reference Court had not taken the said documents into consideration on the premise that none of the persons connected to the said documents were examined. 18) The said view of Reference Court is not sustainable in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In V. Narasaiah case, referred to supra, dealing with an appeal against the orders of the 10 Division Bench of High Court of AP with reference to Section 51-A of the Act, in para 13 and 14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia opined as follows: “13. If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which is a certified copy falling within the purview of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of Section 51-A in the LA Act, could there be any legislative object in incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that for the State officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document “may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document” it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence. 14. The words “may be accepted as evidence” in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned.” 19) The three member bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while not accepting the opinion of the two Judge Bench in the decisions in Inder Singh 11 v Union of India7and P. Ram Reddy v Land Acquisition Officer8 that even in respect of Section 51-A of the Act certified copies of sale deeds could not be considered without examining the persons connected with the transactions, did not find fault with the orders of the High Court for relying on the transactions recorded in the exhibits though no one was examined for proving such transactions. 20) In a subsequent decision in Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd., referred to supra, a five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with scope and evidentiary value of the documents and interpreted Section 51-A of the Act. It also set at naught the conflicting views between the two (2) and three (3) Judge Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Special Deputy Collector v Kurra Sambasiva Rao9 and Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v V. Narasaiah10 and another three (3)-Judge Bench in CA No.6986 of 1989 dated 31.07.2001. According to the judgment in Kurra Sambasiva Rao, referred to supra, Section 51-A of the Act only dispenses with the production of original sale deed and permits the receiving of certified copy of such document in evidence. It was held that the marking of certified copy per se does not make the contents of such document admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and witnessed, that is by examination of the vendor or vendee. In the subsequent case of V. Narasaiah referred to 7 (1993) 3 SCC 240 8 (1995) 2 SCC 305 9 (1997) 6 SCC 41 10 (2001) 3 SCC 530 12 supra, it was held that the object of the Act was not only to permit the production of certified copies of the sale transactions, but also to accept the same as evidence of the transactions. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after referring to a catena of judgments and while opining that Section 51-A of the Act as understood in V. Narasaiah’s case to be the correct interpretation, in para 39, inter alia held as follows: “While it is clear that under Section 51-A of the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v V. Narasaiah lays down the correct law.” 21) In the present case, though no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the State, the learned Reference Court went wrong in opining that Ex.B1 to B6 cannot be taken into consideration, as none of the persons connected to the said documents were examined. Apart from the above mentioned sale transactions, the claimants have also placed reliance on Ex.B7 i.e., Judgment of Reference Court in LAOP No.87 of 1998 dated 10.12.2003, which is in respect of the acquisition of lands situated in B. Thandrapadu village for the purpose of establishment of Post-Graduation Centre of Sri Krishnadevaraya University at Kurnool. Section 4 (1) Notification in respect of the said acquisition was dated 05.05.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by which, the 13 matter was carried to the Reference Court seeking enhancement. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, including the orders passed by the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in A.S.No.2240 of 2001, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre. 22) The learned counsel for the cross-objectors / claimants contended that the Reference Court ought to have taken the judgment in LAOP No.807 of 1998 (Ex.B7) and fixed the compensation by applying the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash (Dead) by LRS., v Union of India11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Raofuddin case inter alia held that in the absence of sale deeds, the Judgment and Awards passed in respect of the lands acquired in the vicinity can be accepted as valid evidence and basis to determine the market value. However, in the case on hand, sale deeds are available. Therefore, the same can be considered for fixing the market value, instead of Ex.B7 as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors. 23) Ex.B1 is a Registered sale deed transaction of the year 2004, wherein an extent of 1200 Sq.ft./133.33 Sq.yards was sold for Rs.24,000/-. Ex.B2 is a sale transaction dated 31.01.2005 wherein an extent of 1910 Sq.yards was sold for Rs.1,34,000/-. Ex.B3 is a sale transaction dated 31.07.2002 wherein an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.194 was sold for Rs.30,000/-. Ex. B5 dated 16.12.2003, is a registered sale transaction in respect of the land 11 (2004) 10 SCC 627 14 situated in Sy.No.289/B, wherein an extent of 14811 sq.yards was sold for Rs.3 Lakhs and Ex.B6 dated 13.09.2004 is in respect of the sale of land of an extent of Ac.2-00 cents situated in Sy.No.195 of B. Thandrapadu, reflecting the value at the rate of Rs.3,39,200/- per acre. Ex.B4 sale transaction dated 25.03.2006 is just two months prior to Section 4 (1) Notification under which an extent of one acre situated in Sy.No.194 was sold for Rs.2,05,000/-. Except Ex.B4 and B6, all other sale transactions are on the basis of sq.yard basis and the same cannot be considered as comparable sales to the huge extent of land acquired under the present notification. 24) For arriving at just and reasonable compensation, Ex.B6 sale transaction dated 13.09.2004 reflecting market value of Rs.3,39,200/- per acre can be taken into consideration. Section 4(1) of the Notification was issued on 27.05.2006. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash case referred to above, this Court is inclined to fix the market value, taking the time gap between the said sale transaction dated 13.09.2004 and the Section 4(1) of the Notification dated 27.05.2006, i.e., about 20 months and 14 days by adding value appreciation at the rate of 12% p.a.. Therefore, if the same is taken into account i.e., Rs.69,423/- for the purpose of arriving at the just compensation, the market value would be around Rs.4,08,623/- per acre. In the light of the settled legal position and the potentiality of the land for house sites, it may be appropriate to deduct 10% towards development charges. After giving effect to the same, the market 15 value works out to Rs.3,67,760/- per acre. The point is accordingly answered against the appellant / State and partly in favour of the cross objectors. 25) In the result, LAAS Nos.1064 and 1101 of 2011 are dismissed. The Cross-objections I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13009 of 2012) I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13011 of 2012) are allowed in part. 26) The cross-objectors are entitled for the enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. They are also entitled to all the statutory benefits. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. 27) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J DATE:25.04.2025 SSV 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 1064 & 1101 OF 2011 AND I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13009 of 2012) & I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13011 of 2012) Date:25.04.2025 ssv