APHC010410662015 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 LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL Nos. 172, 174, 184, 201, 202 LAAS No.172 of 2015: BETWEEN: 1. The Special Deputy Collector Ganga Project, Nandyal 1. Y Prabakar Reddy Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. The Appeal is filed below passed in OP No. 76 of 2012 dt: 30 in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL Nos. 172, 174, 184, 201, 202 AND 314 of 2015 The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...Appellant AND Prabakar Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. Midthur Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent The Appeal is filed to set aside the order and decree of the Court below passed in OP No. 76 of 2012 dt: 30-8-2014 and allow the appeal Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following: [3526] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL Nos. 172, 174, 184, 201, 202 Land Acquisition Officer, Telugu ...Appellant , S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. Midthur espondent to set aside the order and decree of the Court allow the appeal 2 Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Mr. T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Also heard Smt. Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants, who appeared through online. 2. Aggrieved by a Common Order dated 30.08.2014 in L.A.O.P.Nos. 76, 80, 40, 39, 69 and 70 of 2012, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, the State preferred the present batch of appeals. The respondents herein are the claimants in the said O.Ps. 3. For the purpose of excavation of 4L/5R Sub-Minor Distributory in Block No.19 B of Telugu Ganga Project, Nandyal, the Special Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notification dated 30.05.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land in the village limits of Velagalapalli Village, Rudravaram Mandal belonging to the respondents / claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer by conducting Award enquiry, classified the lands into two categories i.e., (i) dry lands, (ii) irrigated dry lands and fixed the market value @ Rs.35,000/- and Rs.45,000/- per acre respectively. The respondents / claimants while receiving the compensation under protest sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 3 4. Before the Reference Court, the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and in support of their case, examined P.Ws.1(claimant in O.P.No.40 of 2012) and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1-Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 16.06.2003. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. Attested Copy of the Award No.13/2006 dated 01.08.2006 in respect of the lands in question was marked as Ex.B1. 5. The Reference Court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation in respect of subject lands to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 6. Mr. T.S.Rayalu, the learned Government Pleader, vehemently contends that the enhancement of the compensation by the Reference Court is without any valid basis. He submits that the respondents / claimants have not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of the compensation. He argues that Ex.A1-Sale transaction dated 16.06.2003 is in respect of the lands situated in altogether a different village i.e., Chinna Kambaluru village, and even according to the respondents / claimants, the distance between the said village and the subject matter lands under acquisition situated in Velagalapalli is about 5 Kms. Therefore, the said sale transaction ought not to have been taken into consideration and the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by taking the sale statistics at the time of Award 4 enquiry ought to have been approved by the Reference Court. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for allowing the appeals. 7. On the other hand, Smt.Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants appearing through online made submissions to sustain the order of the Reference Court. She contends that the Reference Court considered both oral and documentary evidence in the proper perspective and in the light of the settled legal position referred to in the order under challenge, no interference is called for by this Court in the present appeals. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and the point that arises for adjudication is: Whether the fixation of market value by the Reference Court vide Common Order under challenge warrants interference by this Court as the same is excessive? 9. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that hundreds of acres of land situated in different villages of Kurnool District were acquired for the purpose of the Telugu Ganga Project. Most of these villages are contiguous and nature of the land in most of these villages is similar. Be that as it may. 10. As noted earlier, seeking enhancement of the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands, the claimants got examined P.W.1 5 (claimant in O.P.No.40 of 2012) and P.W.2. They relied on Ex.A1 dated 16.06.2003 which is in respect of land situated at Chinna Kambaluru Village, wherein an extent of Ac.0.50 cents was sold for Rs.40,000/- which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. In the claim statement before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants stated that the fixation of market value is too low, that the Land Acquisition Officer was not correct in making the classification of lands and that it is proper to fix the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. P.W.1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination supporting the contents of the claim statement. Most importantly, P.W.2, the Mandal Agricultural Officer whose jurisdiction extends to Chandalur, Mandalur, Narasapuram, Alamur, Chinna Kambaluru, Peddakambalur, Kondamayapalli villages as also Velagalapalli Village where the subject lands and Ex.A1 lands are situated, categorically deposed that the said lands are having similar crop pattern, productivity and the market value. Nothing contra was elicited in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 2. It is also brought on record that the said villages are situated within a distance of 10 Kms., radius. No contra evidence was adduced either oral or documentary on behalf of the Referring Officer, in the absence of which, the compensation has to be fixed on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants. 6 11. At this juncture, the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader with regard to the sales statistics relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer may also be referred to. However, it is settled law that unless the sale transactions forming basis for fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer are exhibited, the same cannot be treated as evidence though a reference was made in the Award (See: 1988 (3) SCC 751). Therefore, mere marking of Ex.B1-Award in the absence of oral and documentary evidence supporting the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer would not enure to the benefit of the State. Be that as it may. 12. In the land acquisition matters, the Law is well settled that the Court is required to fix just and reasonable compensation. 13. In the present case, to substantiate their claim for enhancement, the respondents / claimants placed reliance on Ex.A1-Registered Sale Deed dated 16.06.2003. The sale transaction is in respect of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents for Rs.40,000/- which took place about 3 years prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 30.05.2006 in respect of the subject matter lands. In the absence of any contra material on record adduced by the Referring Officer, the Court has no option except to take the said Sale Deed into consideration, by taking the time gap of about 3 years. 7 14. Though as per the cited judgment in Omprakash and Ors., v. Union of India1, value appreciation of the land from the date of registration of document till the date of notification can be taken @ 12% p.a., the trial Court has fixed compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits and has not considered the request of the claimants for escalation of the price erroneously on the ground of short span of time between the 4(1) Notification and the Ex.A1 Registered Deed and the same is contrary to record. However, the respondent/claimant has not preferred appeal/ cross objections. 15. Having considered the matter in its entirety, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Reference Court. 16. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 31.07.2025 Harin 1 AIR 2004 SC 4135 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 253 L.A.A.S. Nos. 172, 174, 184, 201, 202 AND 314 of 2015 Date: 31.07.2025 Harin