APHC010224682008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: 1. Kotham Eswara Rao E.G.District AND 1. Land Acquisition O Peddapuram, E.G. District Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Madhavi Priya Mantena Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP for Appeals The Court made the following The present appeal is dated 14.8.2000 in L.A.O.P. No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 2. The appellant herein filed the said O.P., seeking enhancement of compensation fixed by the L.A.O., acre. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL 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.537 of 2008 Kotham Eswara Rao, S/o.Govaraju, Cultivation, Pithapuram ...Appellant Officer & Spl. Dy. Collector, (L.A.), YRP Unit, District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Madhavi Priya Mantena Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the Order and Decree dated 14.8.2000 in L.A.O.P. No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. The appellant herein filed the said O.P., seeking enhancement of fixed by the L.A.O., from Rs.20,500/- to Rs.50,000/ [3526] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Govaraju, Cultivation, Pithapuram, Appellant , YRP Unit, Respondent preferred against the Order and Decree dated 14.8.2000 in L.A.O.P. No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Court of The appellant herein filed the said O.P., seeking enhancement of to Rs.50,000/- per 2 LAAS_537_2008 3. Heard Smt.Madhavi Priya Mantena, learned counsel for the appellant, who appeared through online. Also heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. 4. For acquisition of an extent of Acs.23.00 of land in various Survey Numbers of Pithapuram Village for the purpose of excavation of Pithapuram Branch canal, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 18.10.1982. An extent of Acs.1.53 cents of the land covered by Survey Nos.583/2C, 583/2B and 583/2A of the appellant was part of the acquisition. The possession of the land was taken over on 10.1.1983. The L.A.O., after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.25/1985 dated 11.8.1985 fixing the compensation @ Rs.20,500/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed, the appellant received the same under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act seeking enhancement/fixation of compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. 5. Initially, the learned Reference Court, by Order and Decree dated 05.8.1981 enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred appeal vide A.S. No.684 of 1993 and a learned Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, vide Judgment dated 19.1.2000 remitted the matter to the Reference Court for de novo enquiry, with certain observations. Pursuant to the remand, the learned Reference Court, after examining the matter passed the orders afresh, by fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia contended that the learned Reference Court erred in not fixing the compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre, despite availability of sale transactions supporting 3 LAAS_537_2008 the claim of the appellant. She submits that the subject matter land is at a distance of one furlong from Pithapuram – Uppada road and six furlongs from Pithapuram Sugar Factory, that there are several houses constructed near the acquired land. She submits that as is evident from Ex.X1 sale deed dated 15.4.1983, the value of the land adjacent to the subject matter lands is Rs.40,000/- per acre. She also contends that the learned Reference Court went wrong in not taking into consideration Ex.X1 on the premise that it is a post-Notification sale transaction. It is her contention that there is no bar to take into account the post- Notification sale transactions, which would reflect that there is a steep increase in the market value, in view of the location and potentiality for development. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh vs. State of Haryana1 and the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Power Grid Corporation vs. State of U.P. 2 . Making the said submissions and stating that the appellant has restricted his claim to Rs.40,000/- per acre, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia contended that on the earlier occasion while remanding A.S. No.684 of 1993, the appellant/claimant was permitted to exhibit those sale deeds, which according to him were misplaced and such of those sale deeds, which are prior to the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification, can alone be relied on by the appellant/claimant for fixation of market value. He submits that Ex.X1 on which strong reliance was placed, is a post-notification sale transaction and that the learned Reference Court had rightly discarded Ex.X1 and fixed just compensation. He also submits that Exs.A.2 and A.4 are also post- 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1466 2 2015 SCC OnLine All 3418 4 LAAS_537_2008 notification sale transactions and so far as Ex.A.3 sale deed dated 03.10.1981 is concerned, it is in respect of a small extent of Ac.0.03 cents and as such, it cannot be taken as a comparable sale for computing the market value of the subject matter land of huge extent. The learned Government Pleader submits that in any event, the market value as fixed by the learned Reference Court warrants no interference by this Court. Making the said submissions, learned Government Pleader urges for dismissal of the appeal. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the order under challenge was passed subsequent to the judgment dated 19.1.2000 in A.S. No.684 of 1993 on remand. Prior to the remand, before the learned Reference Court, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined on behalf of the claimant/appellant and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were market. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. After remand, Ex.X.1 dated 15.4.1983 (sic., 15.4.1989) was marked. The learned Reference Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, discarded Exs.A.2 and A.4 while noting that the said sale transactions are subsequent to Section 4(1) Notification dated 18.10.1982 and taking over possession of the subject matter land on 10.1.1983. While observing that the claimant/appellant has not filed any other sale deeds except Ex.X.1 sale deed dated 15.4.1983, which is also subsequent to Section 4(1) Notification, the learned Reference Court was not inclined to take Ex.X.1 into consideration. In so far as Ex.A.3 is concerned, the learned Reference Court had taken note of the same as it is in respect of Ac.0.03 cents sold for Rs.900/-, which works out to Rs.30,000/- per acre, however opined that there is no evidence to prove the said document. Be that as it may. 5 LAAS_537_2008 9. The learned Reference Court, in the light of the material available on record, had fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre and granted the statutory benefits. Though the learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on Ex.X.1, which is a post-Notification sale transaction, when a sale exemplar in respect of the lands, which are situated in the vicinity of the acquired land, is available and it reflects the market value prior to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification, the same needs to be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. It is no doubt true that as per the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the potentiality and the prospects for development of the acquired land owing to its location can also be taken into consideration, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, while fixing the just compensation. 10. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that while remanding the matter, the claimant/appellant was granted liberty to file only those documents, which are misplaced, which would prove the value of the land would be more than Rs.30,000/- per acre at the relevant point of time i.e., prior to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification, but not the sale transactions subsequent thereto. Obviously, the learned Reference Court, on remand, after taking the said aspect into consideration, had fixed the compensation, without taking into account Ex.X.1, which is a post- Notification sale transaction. 11. In so far as his submission that Ex.A.3 is in respect of a small extent of the land and the same cannot be taken into account, there is no hard and fast rule that the sale transactions in respect of small extents of land cannot be taken into consideration at all. In the absence of any material/document exhibited by the Referring Officer or contra evidence substantiating that the true market value is not reflected in Ex.A.3 sale 6 LAAS_537_2008 transaction, the submission of the learned Government Pleader merits no appreciation. 12. Coming to the contention that the appellant is entitled for market value @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, except Ex.A.3 i.e., registered sale deed dated 03.10.1981, which is a sale transaction prior to Section 4(1) Notification dated 18.10.1982, there is no other material. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to take the said document into consideration for fixing just compensation. As noted earlier, the possession of the subject matter land was taken over on 10.1.1983, pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification dated 18.10.1982 and Ex.A.3 is dated 03.10.1981 i.e., about one year prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Therefore, taking the time gap of one year into consideration and applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v. Union of India3, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.33,600/- per acre. The appellant/claimant is entitled to all the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4(1) Notification. 13. The appeal suit is, accordingly, allowed in part. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J April 03, 2025 vasu 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627