APHC010554522015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT N Between: Special Deputy Collector District. AND Telugu Lakshmi Gurramma (Minor) Gurrappa, R/o Perusomula Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following The present batch of appeals are preferred by the State, aggrieved by the common order dated 29.8.2012 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542 and 543 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. The respondents/claimants enhancement of compensation by invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.141, 142, 143, 145, 254, 306 & 319 OF 2015 pecial Deputy Collector, L.A., G.N.S.S., Unit-1, Nandyal, Kurnool ...Petitioner Telugu Lakshmi Gurramma (Minor), Guardian & D/o.Appaiah Perusomula (V), Sanjamala (M), Kurnool District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Rayalu, G.P. for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.K.Ratangapani Reddy The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) batch of appeals are preferred by the State, aggrieved by the common order dated 29.8.2012 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542 and 543 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The respondents/claimants filed the said O.Ps seeking enhancement of compensation by invoking Section 18 of the Land 1894 (for short, the LA Act). IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 141, 142, 143, 145, 254, 306 & , Kurnool ...Petitioner .Appaiah @ ...Respondent for Appeals batch of appeals are preferred by the State, aggrieved by the common order dated 29.8.2012 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542 and 543 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal filed the said O.Ps seeking enhancement of compensation by invoking Section 18 of the Land 2 LAAS_141_2015 and batch 3. For the purpose of excavation of Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS) Flood Flow Canal, several extents of lands in different Villages of Kurnool District were acquired. As a part of the said Project, for acquisition of the lands of the respondents/claimants situated in Kotapadu Village, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued on 26.6.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.7/2006–’07 dated 08.8.2006 and fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, while receiving the awarded compensation under protest, the respondents/claimants sought enhancement of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre as against Rs.45,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Before the Reference Court, the Referring Officer was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the claimants, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. The Commissioner’s warrant, the Commissioner’s report and the Commissioner’s plan were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.3. The learned Reference Court while appreciating the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation from Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. 5. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader assailing the enhancement of compensation made submissions to the effect that the respondents/ claimants had not adduced evidence to support their claim for enhancement of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He submits that the learned Reference Court failed to appreciate the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer in the proper perspective and in the light of the said material, the learned Reference Court ought to have confirmed the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He submits that in any event, the enhancement of compensation from Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.1,35,000/- per acre is 3 LAAS_141_2015 and batch unjust and highly excessive. Making the said submissions, learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeals by setting aside common order under challenge. 6. On the other hand, Mr.S.Chandra Sekhara Reddy, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants made submissions to sustain the common order under challenge passed by the learned Reference Court. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs in the common order, wherein the learned Reference Court discussed about the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents/claimants, learned counsel submits that in fact Ex.B.4, the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 04.6.2008 was in respect of the land situated in the very same Village i.e., Kotapadu, wherein an extent of Acs.2.05 cents was sold at Rs.6,15,000/- per acre and if the same is taken into consideration, the fixation of the market value by the learned Reference Court cannot be viewed as unjust or without any valid basis. He also submits that in fact before the Reference Court an argument was advanced on behalf of the Referring Officer to the effect that under Ex.A.4, the common order in O.P. No.717 of 2007 and batch, dated 19.6.2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the market value was fixed at Rs.1,34,000/- per acre as against the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer and it would be proper to fix the market value in respect of the acquired lands of the respondents/claimants @ Rs.1,34,000/- per acre. The learned counsel also states that in respect of the acquisition of the lands which are situated at Perusomula Village for the very same purpose i.e., Excavation of GNSS Flood Flow Canal, the State aggrieved by the said fixation of the market value of the dry lands @ Rs.1,13,000/- per acre and Rs.1,33,000/- for irrigated lands with bore-wells respectively preferred appeals vide L.A.A.S. No.226 of 2013 & batch and the same were dismissed along 4 LAAS_141_2015 and batch with Cross-objections filed by the claimants therein vide common judgment dated 03.1.2025 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He states that Kotapadu and Perusomula are neighbouring Villages and the distance between them is about two (2) KMs. The learned counsel, while contending that the order under challenge is well considered, seeks dismissal of the appeals. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court is excessive and warrants interference by this Court? 9. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no dispute about the extents of the lands and the purpose of acquisition i.e., for excavation of GNSS Flood Flow Canal. Seeking enhancement of the compensation as against Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, the claimants approached the Reference Court and adduced oral and documentary evidence referred to above. So far as Ex.B.4 is concerned i.e., sale transaction dated 04.6.2008, it is subsequent to the date of acquisition of the land in the year 2006 and therefore, the said transaction cannot be taken into consideration. 10. Ex.B1 dated 01.03.1993 is a copy of the Award in respect of the lands acquired on the earlier occasion. The lands in question were acquired in the year 2006. Ex.B2 dated 13.11.2004 is the common order in O.P.No.167 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal wherein the market value of the similarly situated lands were enhanced to Rs.1,49,000/- and reduced to Rs.1,48,000/- per acre by the High Court vide Order dated 26.03.2007 in L.A.A.S.No.1748 of 2005 & batch. Further, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents / 5 LAAS_141_2015 and batch claimants, in respect of the lands situated in the neighbouring village Perusomula, the L.A.O., pursuant to a Section 4 (1) Notification dated 20.02.2006 passed an award dated 28.07.2006 fixing the market value @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. The Reference Court vide Orders dated 22.02.2012 enhanced the same to Rs.1,13,000/- per acre and it was confirmed by the orders of the High Court dated 03.01.2025 in L.A.A.S.No.226 of 2013. Be that as it may. Even as seen from the order under challenge, it appears that a submission was made on behalf of the State that it would be proper to fix the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,34,000/- per acre. 11. This Court considering the matter in its entirety and in the light of the discussion referred to supra, is of the considered opinion that the market value fixed by the Reference Court is just, reasonable and not excessive as argued by the learned Government Pleader. Hence, his contentions are rejected. The point is answered accordingly. 12. There are no merits in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J August 21, 2025 vasu / BLV 6 LAAS_141_2015 and batch THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.141, 142, 143, 145, 254, 306 & 319 OF 2015 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Date: 21.08.2025 vasu / BLV