IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 425 OF 2008 AND lA. No. 2 of 2010 (X OBJ 9811/2010) LAAS. No. 425 of 2008: Between: Pasala Satyananda Rao, S/o. Late Gopalakrishna Rao, Medical Profession, R/o. Samalkot, E.G. District. ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT N AND Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer. Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER < Appeal under Section 54 of Acquisition Act. 1894, against the judgment and Decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, passed in O.P. No. 85 of 2002. dated 12-12-2007. r lA. No, 2 of 2010 rx OBJ 9811/2010) Between: The Land Acquisition Officer/Special Grade Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC Ltd. Visakhapatnam, Camp Office at Kakinada, East Godavari District ...CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER AND Pasala Satyananda Rao, S/o. Late Gopalakrishna Rao, aged 62 yrs, Occ; Medical Profession, R/o. Samalkot, E.G. District. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/CLAIMANT Cross Objection under Section 43 Rule 1 of CPC, Cross Objection in LAAS. No. 425 of 2008, which was filed against the order and decree dated 12-12-2007 in L.A.O.P. No. 85 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Seri'tor Civil Judge, Kakinada. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of papers in appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, Advocate for the Appellant in LAAS. No. 425 of 2008 and Respondent i lA. No. 2 of 2010 tX Obj 9811/2010) and Sri Ramachandra in Rao Gurram, Advocate for the Respondent in LAAS. No. 425 of 2008 and Cross Objector in lA. No. 2 of 2010 (X Obj 9811/2010). THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the Land Acquisition Appeal suit be and is hereby disposed of; V - 2. That the compensation be and is hereby fixed at the rate of 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) per acre and the claimant be and hereby is entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894; 3. That 1/5*^ of the land value be and hereby is deducted towards development charges as the land acquisition is for expansion of the industrial area; 4. That I.A. No. 2 of 2010 (X-Obj. 9811/2010) be and hereby disposed of.and answered in favour of the Cross Objector. 5. That the Claimant - respondent be and hereby is entitled interest as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking Possessioni.e. from 15.06.2001. 6. That both parties do bear their own costs in this Land Acquisition Appeal suit. IS SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, t> The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, E.G. District 2. THREE CD COPIES TAC ■“K HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.425 of 2008 IN lA. No. 2 of 2010 (X Obj 9811/2010) DISPOSING OF THE LAAS WITH OWN COSTS V- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE honourable SRI JUSTICE NINALA AND the honourable SRI JUSTICE TARLAD. LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPFAI JAYASURYA ^ RAJASEKHAR RAO NO: 425 OF ?nn« AND lA. No. 2 of 2010 { X OBJ 9811/2010) LAAS. No. 42.*^ nf 9nnf^. Appeal under Section 54 of Acquisition Decree of the Principal Senior Civil 2002, dated 12-12-2007. Act, 1894 against the judgment and Judge, Kakinada, passed in O.P. No. 85 of Between: Pasala Satyananda Rao, Profession, R/o. Samalkot S/o. Late Gopalakrishna E.G. District. Rao, Medical ■ .appellant/claimant AND Land Acquisition Officer 8 Revenue Godavari District. Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East ■■•RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER : SRI K B RAMANNA DORA SRI RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent: lA. No. 2 of 2010 (X OBJ 9811/2010) Cross Objection under Section 43 Rule 1 of CPC, Cross Objection in LAAS. No. 425 of 2008, which was filed against the order and decree dated 12-12-2007 in L.A.O.P. No. 85 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Between: The Land Acquisition Officer/Special Grade Deputy Collector (LA) APIIC Ltd., Visakhapatnam, Camp Office at Kakinada, East Godavari District ...CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER AND Pasala Satyananda Rao, S/o. Late Gopalakrishna Rao, aged 62 yrs, Occ; Medical Profession, R/o. Samalkot, E.G. District. RESPONDENT/ / APPELLANT/CLAIMANT Counsel for the Cross Objector : SRI RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM : SRI K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent 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 Nn. 425 of 2008 AND LA. No.2 of 2010(X OBJ 9811/2010) COMMON JUDGMENT- {Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) The present appeal is registered under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short referred reference made under Section 18 of the Act Judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2007 to as “Act”) on the aggrieved by the on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- qua the prevailing rate of Rs 4,00,000/- acre, where the acquisition department has per acquired the land belongs to the appellant (herein after called as “claimant”) before 4 ' ' the Reference Court for the purpose of expansion of Industrial Area for A.P.I.I.C. Limited in an extent of Ac.3.93 cents in Sy. No. 124/2 situated in Jaggammagaripeta village. And the APIIC has filed cross-objection vide 9811 of 2010. 2. The land acquisition department has issued 4(1) Notification under the Act on 08.03.1999 and the 15.06.2001. Award No.1/2000 possession was taken on was delivered on 20.08.2000. The 2 land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Industrial area in Jaggammagaripeta village and the compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre as the LAO has found that lands are not fertile lands, no irrigation sources to the acquired land and the soil 1 reddish with gravel, and no structures. But the LAO observed palmyra, teak tree are available here and IS some mango, neem there in the acquisition land. 3. Aggrieved by the fixation of land at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- the claimant has requested the LAO to refer the issue under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre relying on the sale statistics and relying on the value of the land in Sy No.89/1 for extent of Ac. 1-62 cents appears to be the proximate land. per acre. an discarding the value of other lands referred by the LAO by of the land towards development of agricultural rd deducting 1/3 land into industrial use. Now aggrieved by the fixation of the land value at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, the present Appeal. The Claimant he In the chief examination it was 4. himself was examined as PW1. depicted that the acquired land is at the distance of 2 furlongs from 100 feet A.D.B. Road and it is situated in between the B.S.E.S. 3 Power Station and Food Corporation Godowns and a road is also situated, a school building and other residential and non-residential buildings situated near and adjoining. And it is further stated that PW-2 and his family member have sold the lands to B.S.E.S. Andhra Power Ltd vide Ex. R-1 to R-5 at the rate of Rs.3,15,000/- per acre in Sy.No 86/1 of Jaggammagaripeta village and acquired lands worth of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, hence, prayed to enhance the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre with ail consequential benefits under the Act. The counsel for the Claimant has relied on the judgments Satish and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others^ and Horrmal since deceased through his LR’s Vs. State of Haryana and others.^ 5. Claimant, examined PW-2 who sold the land to B.S.E.S. Andhra Power Limited, in his support to substantiate that the value of the acre under acquisition is above Rs.3,00.000/- 6. PW-2 supported the version of the Claimant and he stated that he has sold the land belonging to him and his family members to B.S.E.S. Andhra Power Ltd vide Ex. R-2 to R-5 at the rate of Rs.3,15,000/- per acre in Sy. No 86/1 of Jaggammagaripeta village. ’ (2009) 14 see 758 " 2024 Lawsuit (Se) 927 4 7. Both PW-1 (claimant) and PW-2 in the testimonies of their cross-examination, were not able to withstand as stated in their chief examination and further stated that lands purchased under Ex. P2 to P5 were situated in Bhimavaram village and the land under acquisition is situated in Jaggammagaripeta village, and admittedly the lands are far away from the land acquired under the Ex P-2 to P-5. And admitted that the lands under acquisition are not situated in between the B.S.E.S. Power Station and Food Corporation Godowns as deposed in the chief affidavit. 8. R.W-1 the Special Deputy Tahsildar Land Acquisition Unit for APIIC Limited has deposed that earlier to the award 1/2000 land was acquired under award No-4/1998 which is consent award and the land owners agreed to receive an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre including all the statutory payments like solatium additional market value, interest etc., and the said fact was mentioned in the award No-1 / 2000 and the land under Ex. P-1 to P-5 is having special advantage and special necessity for that land and therefore they paid more than the prevailing market rate for the land. 9. R.W-1 the Special Deputy Tahsildar Land Acquisition Unit for APIIC Limited has stated in the testimony of her cross- 5 examination that she has no idea of topography of the acquired land and has no personal knowledge about RW-1 document and further stated the lands will be registered as per Basic Value Register. 10. The counsel for beneficiary department Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao has emphasised his argument on the sole ground that the Reference Court erred in granting interest from the date of Section 4(1) Notification (8.3.1999) as against the date of taking possession (15.06.2001), which is not in- consonance with the statutory provisions as adumbrated in Sections 28 & 34 of the Act and the grant of interest on compensation is payable from the date of taking possession of the land under the provisions of the Act. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another^. The judgment has no relevance to the contention raised by the beneficiary department. The possession was taken on 15.06.2001 and the date of notification is 08.03.1999. 11. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act envisages that if the Court grants more money than the Collector has given as "’(2310) 1 see 444 6 compensation, the Collector may be ordered to pay interest on the excess rate starting on the date on which he took possession. On perusal of the documents filed by the Claimant testimonies of the PW-1 and PW-2 and the testimony of RW-1 and examining the arguments advanced by the respective point for consideration is whether the Reference Court has answered the reference in accordance with law and fixed market value? 12. and the counsel, the the fair 13. On perusal of the evidence and of PW-1 and PW-2 R-1, the land in Sy.No-89/1 and 86/1 and the land acquisition of the Claimant Jaggammagaripeta village. PW-2 sold the Rs.3,00,000/- and Ex. under in Sy.No.124/1 belongs to land at the rate of per acre and RW-1 has not specifically denied the land value of Ex P-1 in his chief examination and the LAO has not inspected the land under acquisition physically. 14. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Subh Ram and others^s. State of Haryana and another^ is not much assistance relied on in Mehrawal Khawaja to the Claimant. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court i ■) "(2010) 1 see 444 7 Court has Hon’ble Apex taken away from a similar land in the wherein the Trust Vs. State of Punjab^ ruled that “When the land is being compulsorily is entitled to the highest value which person, he is - localltv is shown to have entered fetched in a bonafide transaction willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the into between a of the acquisition. time ^ land under village and is acquired and as held by iand in Sy. No.89/1 and the situated in same the Admittedly 15. under Sy.No.124/1 are than 1 acquisition and the lands that are bonafide transaction of less at the distance award No. 4/1998 are Court in Trust Vs. State of locality and bonafide under the Hon’ble Apex Punjab® if the lands are in about the time, acquisition in Mehrawal Kbawaja the same similar land in can be considered as similar land and in near transaction. Undoubtedly locality lands are in the village. the without Hence, basis for the of Jaggamaganpeta the same of Ex. P-2 as a the land value of the hesitation, we take of the compensation of the land under acquisition '124/1 and fix the lakhs) per acre. fixation Claimant in an Sy. No 000/- (in words three of ac.3.92 cents in extent Rs.3,00 compensation as i ^ (20'12) 5 see 432 ® (2012) 5 see 432 8 However, 1/5‘^ has to be deducted as the acquisition is for the expansion of the i The Reference Court has of the Act from the date of date of taking possession i. entitled interest possession. The issue i towards development charges - industrial area. 16. awarded interest under Section notification i.e., 08.03.1999 instead of 28 e.. 15.06.2001. Hence, the Claimant i per Section 28 of the Act from the IS as date of taking IS answered in favour the X-objector. 17. Accordingly the Appeal i disposed of fixing 000/- (Rupees three lakhs IS the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00 only) per acre and the benefits under the Land value shall be deducted towards acquisition is for the the discussion i Claimant is entitled to all the statutory Acquisition Act 1894, 1/5'^ of the land development charges as the land expansion of the industrial area. In view of in paragraph No.16, I.A.No.2 of 2010(X-Obj.981 parties shall bear their As a sequel, interlocutory applications these appeals shall stand dismissed. 1/2010) is disposed of. However both own costs. if any pending in SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR /r m- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, E.G. District (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. K B RAMANNA DORA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. THREE CD COPIES high court DATED:08/05/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS.No.425 of 2008 AND lA. No. 2 of 2010 (X Obj ? 2 JUl 2025 O rn C3 9811/2010) disposing of the laas With own costs 5. T/\C