Contd… APHC010293862015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3495] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos:279, 209, 210, 218 and 308 of 2015 L.A.A.S No.279 of 2015 Between: The Special Deputy Collector Cum Land Acquisition Officer ...APPELLANT AND K Prasad Kurnool District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following Common Judgment: (per NJS,J) The present batch of appeals arise out of a common order dated 30.08.2014 in L.A.O.P Nos.32, 83, 160, 163 and 164 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. 2. Heard Mr. T S Rayulu, learned Government Pleader for the appellant. Also heard Smt. B Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared through online. NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S Nos.279 of 2015 and batch 2 Contd… 3. For the purpose of excavation of 9R Sub-minor Distributory in Block No.14 of Telugu Ganga Project, different extents of lands of the respondents in various survey numbers of Chennur Village were acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 12.05.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.72 of 2005-06 granting compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court answered the reference by fixing compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, apart from awarding statutory benefits. 4. The learned Government Pleader inter alia contends that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered all the relevant factors during the course of Award proceedings and fixed the market value Rs.35,000/- per acre, which is just and reasonable. He submits that the fixation of market value by the Reference Court is without any valid basis, excessive and not sustainable. He submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in fixing the compensation on the basis of Ex.A1, Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004 in respect of lands situate in another village and far away from the lands under the present acquisition and potentiality of the same is not similar. He also contends that the nature of the lands in the same village varies from one place to the other. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader emphatically submits that the fixation of compensation by the Reference Court is on higher side, amounts to enhancement on enhancement and warrants interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the orders of the Reference Court by contending that the learned Reference Court had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and rightly fixed the compensation in respect of the NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S Nos.279 of 2015 and batch 3 Contd… subject matter lands. She submits that the evidence on record would establish that the subject matter lands are nearer to the land situate in the neighbouring village which was sold vide Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2004. She also submits that the learned Reference Court had rightly relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is settled law that while fixing the market value, when there are no sales in the concerned Village where the lands are situated, the market value of the lands in the adjoining villages or the Award in respect of the same can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel contends that there are no merits, much less, valid grounds in the present appeals and seeks dismissal of the same. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and the perused the material available on record. 7. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this batch of appeals is as to whether the order of the Reference Court warrants interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8. Before answering the point, it is to be noted that before the Reference Court, PWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants and Ex.A1, Certified copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004 was marked, wherein an extent of 0.68 cents was sold for Rs.68,000/- which works to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. Ex.B1, Copy of Award No.72/2005-06 dated 20.03.2006 was marked with consent. 9. PW1 in his evidence categorically stated that the acquired land is black cotton soil, he used to raise paddy, turmeric, sugar cane in his bore irrigated dry land and was getting Rs.30,000/- per acre, per year. He further testified that Telugu Ganga main canal flows via Velugodu, Boyarevula, NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S Nos.279 of 2015 and batch 4 Contd… Narayanapuram, Thimmapuram, Gajulapalli etc., that LAO has acquired land in Mahadevapuram, Chennur, etc., for excavation of major canal, thus all the said villages are connected with Telugu Ganga canal and are similar in fertility, cropping pattern and market value. In the cross examination, he deposed that the distance between his village and the neighbouring villages is about one kilometer and that though Ex.A1 belongs to Gajulapalli village, it is pertaining to their adjoining lands. He also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 was created for the purpose of the case. PW2, attestor of Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2004 supported the case of PW1 with regard to the nature and potentiality of the acquired lands and Ex.A1 transaction land and that they are similar. He deposed that the distance between this lands under acquisition and Ex.A1 land is 2 Km to 3 Km. Nothing contra could be elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 that Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2004 is not genuine, brought into existence for the purpose of boosting the claim artificially. Hence, the same can be safely relied for the purpose of fixing the market value. Further, the documentary evidence was adduced by the Referring Officer and the sale statistics/transactions unless exhibited before the Reference Court, cannot be appreciated. 10. The learned Reference Court by taking into consideration the evidence on record more particularly Ex.A1, fixed the market value as the lands in question and the lands under Ex.A1 transaction are situate in the adjoining Villages. In G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that instances of sale of similar lands situated in the same village or neighbouring villages can be taken for determination of the market value. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader is rejected. 11. In the present case, the lands are acquired for Telugu Ganga Project and it is not in dispute that they are fertile black cotton soil lands. Though 1 (2005) 6 SCC 454 NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S Nos.279 of 2015 and batch 5 there is a time gap of more than one year between the Ex.A1 sale deed dated 09.02.2004 and the Section 4(1) Notification dated 12.05.2005, the Reference Court has not taken into consideration the value appreciation in terms of Om Prakash vs. Union of India2. However, the claimants have not filed appeals. Be that as it may. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court was based on the material on record, supported by cogent reasons, not on higher side and warrants no interference of this Court. 13. Point for consideration is therefore, answered against the appellants. 14. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ____________________________ JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 13.02.2025 Ksj 2 (2004) 10 SCC 627