APHC010250872008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: The Land Acquisition Officer Ponnur. P.Kamalamma &13 Others, Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.N SRIRAM MURTHY 1 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No: 311 of 2008 and Acquisition Officer & Spl. Tasildar, ...APPELLANT AND thers, ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS (AP) for the Respondent(S): N SRIRAM MURTHY NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 [3495] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS 2 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per NJS, J) Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2001 in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, the State preferred the present Appeal. 2. Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and Mr.N.Srirama Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants, who filed the said O.P., under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The brief facts, as culled out from the material on record may be stated thus: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Narasaraopeta, initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings vide Section 4 (1) Notification dated 06.06.1983 for acquisition of an extent of Ac.9.00 cents in the Revenue Village of Annavaram of Pedanandipadu Mandal for improvements of Vogeru Vagu (stream). Urgency clause was invoked and an Award No.63/83 dated 20.12.1983 was passed. However, as the said Award and the proceedings in respect of the same were not traced in the Office resulting in non-payment of compensation under the said Award, some of the land owners filed W.P.No.12915 of 1993 etc., and also C.C.No.690 of 1997 for not implementing the orders passed in the writ petitions. Subsequently, Award No.21 of 1998 dated 16.12.1998 was 3 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 passed. The Land Acquisition Officer taking into account the basic values of the land maintained by the Sub-Registrar Office, fixed the market value @ Rs.5,000/- per acre and awarded statutory benefits in respect of the acquired land. Seeking enhancement of the market value, the respondents whose lands were acquired sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 4. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants examined as many as 11 witnesses i.e., C.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.A1- Certifeid Copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1982 and Ex.A2- Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 26.05.1997. On behalf of the Referring Officer, the Superintendent, Revenue Divisional Office, Guntur was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1-Award No.21 of 1998 dated 16.12.1998 and Ex.B2 & Ex.B3-Copies of inspection notes dated 12.09.1997 and Combined sketch, respectively were marked. 5. The Reference Court, after considering the matter with reference to the oral and documentary evidence as also the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, answered the point for consideration as to whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and if so, what is the adequate market value of the lands under acquisition, in favour of the respondents / claimants. It fixed the market value @ Rs.30,857/- per acre with interest and other statutory benefits. 4 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 6. The learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contended that the Order under challenge is erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and therefore liable to be set aside. He contends that the enhancement of compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,857/- per acre is without any valid basis and no cogent material / evidence was placed before the Reference Court in support of the claim for enhancement. Contending that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.A1 dated 24.09.1982, he submits that the sale transaction under Ex.A1 was in respect of a small extent of land and that the same cannot be basis for fixation of market value as the extent involved under the present acquisition is large. He also impugns the order of the Reference Court for not making deductions towards development charges. He contends that the value appreciation @ 12% p.a., as adopted by the Reference Court, in the absence of any supporting evidence in proof of increase in the land value, is not tenable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants sought to sustain the order under challenge, inter alia, contending that the same is well considered, based on appreciation of material on record and contains sound reasoning. He submits that there is no bar in taking transactions in respect of small extents, for fixation of appropriate compensation, when there are no transactions of comparable 5 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 sales within the vicinity of the lands under acquisition. He submits that the learned Reference Court also considered the legal precedents, arrived at the right conclusions that the Court is expected to fix the market value on the basis of evidence available before it and the basic valuation is only for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, that the same cannot be the foundation to determine the market value. He contends that as the order under challenge was passed by adhering to the settled legal principles, the contentions contra including with reference to value appreciation adopted by the Reference Court, merits no appreciation and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. On an appreciation of the rival contentions with reference to the oral and documentary evidence, the point that falls for adjudication by this Court is Whether fixation of the market value by the Reference Court warrants interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 9. Before answering the point, it may be pertinent to note that there is no dispute about the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification dated 06.06.1983, filing of Writ Petition No.12915 of 1993 by some of the awardees alleging non-payment of compensation due to non availability of the Award stated to have been passed earlier on 20.12.1983 and the directions in the writ petition to pass Award afresh. 10. In support of their case for more compensation than the amount determined under Ex.B1 dated 16.12.1998 i.e., Award No.21 of 1998 6 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 passed pursuant to the directions in the above said writ petition, the respondents examined claimants 1, 3, 5, 8 to 10 and 13, apart from four other independent witnesses. All the witnesses categorically asserted that the lands under acquisition are fertile, black cotton soil lands, wherein cotton, tobacco and mirchi crops were being raised. They relied on two sale transactions Ex.A1 dt.24.09.1982 and Ex.A2 dated 26.09.1997. So far as Ex.A2 is concerned, it was executed about 14 years, after the Section 4(1) Notification under the Act was issued and the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of market value of the lands which were acquired in the year 1983. 11. Coming to Ex.A1 dated 24.09.1982, a sale transaction covering an extent of Ac.0.45 ½ cents was entered into between one Mr.Kommalapati Kotiswamy and one Smt.Kamalamma for a sum of Rs.13,000/-. 12. C.W.5, the son-in-law of the said Kotiswamy testified about the purchase of land by his father-in-law under Ex.A1 and C.W.2, who is the scribe of the Sale Deed Ex.A1 supported his version and deposed about passing of the consideration in respect of the sale transaction. C.W.7, who is a resident of Annavaram, where the subject matter lands are situated, in his evidence deposed that the possession of the acquired lands was taken in the year 1983 itself and the market value then was Rs.35,000/- per acre. Nothing contra was elicited during the cross examination of the claimant’s witnesses with regard to the nature of the acquired lands or the market 7 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 value of the same prior to their acquisition in the year 1983 as asserted by them. 13. As per the evidence of R.W.1, there is no denial that the lands covered under Ex.A1 are of the same nature and quality as that of the lands under acquisition. His evidence also disclose that he had obtained two sale particulars from the office of the Sub-Registrar which took place during the relevant period, but the same were discarded on the premise that the parties to the said transactions were also affected by the present acquisition proceedings. However, he categorically admitted that there are no acquisition proceedings during the year 1982. He also deposed that the said transactions cannot be taken as genuine sales for fixing the market value and they does not reflect the true value of the lands under acquisition. 14. At this juncture, it may also be pertinent to refer the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Ex.A1 sale transaction was in respect of small extent of land and the same cannot be taken into account as large extents of land are acquired and that too without effecting deductions. So far as, Ex.A1 sale transaction is concerned, the respondents / claimants categorically established the execution of the same by adducing supporting evidence. R.W.1 discarded the same on the premise that the parties whose lands form part of the lands under acquisition are the executants under acquisition. The said approach of the Land Acquisition 8 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 Officer, in the absence of any suggestion to the effect that the market value was inflated in view of the proposal for acquisition of lands in the vicinity cannot be appreciated. Nothing could be elicited in the cross examination of the respondents’ witnesses that Ex.A1 sale transaction do not reflect the correct value of the land acquired from them. Therefore, Ex.A1 can be relied on for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. 15. With regard to the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that the Ex.A1 sale transaction is in respect of small extent of land, that it cannot be taken into consideration as large extents of land were acquired, the same deserves no acceptance, more particularly as there are no other transactions / comparable sales in the vicinity, other than Ex.A1 sale transaction. 16. It is settled Law that in such circumstances, the sale exemplars in respect of the small extents can be relied on. Further, though the contention that the order under challenge without making appropriate deductions towards development charges appears to be tenable at the first blush, it merits no acceptance. It is not in dispute that the subject matter lands are black cotton soil lands and commercial crops like cotton, maize, red gram etc., are being raised. They are situated in a village and the question of deducting the development charges like in the case of house sites does not arise at all. 9 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 17. The learned Reference Court after going through the evidence, both oral and documentary and noting admissions of R.W.1 that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government only in the year 1983 and that there was no acquisition proceedings during 1982 and opining that Ex.A1 is a genuine transaction, took it into consideration for fixing the market value. The reasoning assigned by the learned Reference Court, which is extracted hereunder for taking Ex.A1 sale transaction as the basis for determination of compensation is sound and tenable “25 (a). R.W.1 in Ex.B1 stated that this sale cannot be taken as genuine sale for fixing of market value to the land under acquisition as it does not reflect the true value of the land under acquisition. From the evidence of R.W.1 itself we can safely concludes that his reasoning in not accepting Ex.A1 sale transaction is incorrect. He has admitted that the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government only in the year 1983 and that there was no acquisition proceedings during 1982. From this fact it can be safely conclude that Ex.A1 transaction is not one intended for claiming enhancement compensation. If it was to be intended so then it could have been for even more amount. From the evidence of C.W.6 is a licensed document writer and has scribed Ex.A1 and he is categorically stated that the consideration was paid in his presence. There is absolutely no material on record placed by R.W.1 for the court to suspect the correctness of the transaction under Ex.A1. Therefore, I accept that Ex.A1 is a genuine transaction and it is the only reliable transaction before this Court. When we peruse Ex.B1 it is quite evident that different extents of lands have been acquired from each of the claimants and therefore Ex.A1 cannot be discarded as one for smaller extent of land. No doubt, we have to weigh the pros and cons with regard to the extent involved in the acquisition, because it is but natural that when we try to sell a land more in extent, the 10 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 probabilities of getting purchasers would be less than when so offer to sell land in small extent. It is now clear from the evidence of R.W.1 that the land covered by Ex.A1 is of the same nature and quality of the lands under acquisition.” 18. Ex.A1 dated 24.09.1982 is a sale transaction wherein an extent of Ac.0.45 ½ cents was sold at Rs.13,000/- which works out to Rs.28,571/- per acre. The time lag between the said transaction and Section 4(1) Notification for acquisition of subject matter lands dated 06.06.1983 is about eight (8) months. While determining the market value, the learned Reference Court had added value appreciation by 12% p.a., which comes to Rs.30,857/- per acre. Though the learned Government Pleader contended that the value appreciation at 12% p.a., is not tenable, the same is liable to be negatived in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v Union of India1, wherein it inter alia, opined that while working out fair market value of the subject matter lands there in on the basis of Rs.16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963, the High Court keeping in view that in several judgments of the Apex Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e., 6% p.a from 1959 to 1965, 10% p.a. from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% p.a. from 1975 onwards had been considered to be reasonable, adopted escalation of market value @ 12% p.a. and upheld the same. 1 (2004) 10 SCC 627 11 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 19. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no good grounds to deviate from the well considered order passed by the Reference Court. The point is accordingly answered. 20. In the result, the order under challenge is confirmed and the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J BLV Dt.23.01.2025 12 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_311_2008 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO L.A.A.S.No: 311 of 2008 Date:23.01.2025 BLV