APHC010286182008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH 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.565 of 2008 Between: 1. The Special Deputy Collector, (L.A.O), SRBC, Nandyal. ...Appellant AND 1. Kurva Nadipi Yellaiah, S/o. Ayyanna R/o.Vanala Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2006 in O.P. No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 2. Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government pleader for appeals and Mr.C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 2 LAAS_565_2008 3. For the purpose of construction of Super Passage at K.M. 12.486 of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC), several extents of lands were acquired including an extent of Ac.0.15½ cents of the respondent/ claimant situated in Survey Nos.504 and 593 of Vanala Village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.6.1999 and Draft declaration was published on 25.6.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer, SRBC, Nandyal, after conducting enquiry passed Award dated 05.1.2000 granting compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre. Seeking enhancement of the same, the respondent/claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act vide O.P. No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The Reference Court clubbed the said O.P., along with the other references i.e., O.P. Nos.9 to 12 and 14 to 17 of 2000 and passed a common order dated 23.1.2006 fixed the market value @ Rs.75,000/- per acre in respect of agricultural lands and Rs.2,000/- per Cent in respect of Kallam lands. Aggrieved by the said Common Order, the State preferred the appeals in some of the cases vide L.A.A.S. Nos.564, 566 of 2008 and 47 of 2009 and the same were dismissed. It is not in dispute that against the enhancement of compensation in respect of some of the O.Ps., disposed of vide the said common order, the State has not preferred appeals, which is fatal. Be that as it may. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, in so far as the present appeal is concerned, contends that fixation of market value @ Rs.2,000/- per Cent is not sustainable, as it is excessive and warrants interference by this Court. It is his contention that while fixing the market value, the learned Reference Court relied on the transactions, which are in respect of small extents and the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of the market value when large extents of lands are acquired. 3 LAAS_565_2008 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He submits that the Reference Court while examining the material on record, had taken into consideration Ex.A.5 i.e., Decree and judgment in O.P. No.7 of 2000 on the file of the very same Court, which was in respect of the Award dated 07.10.1999, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre with regard to the land which was acquired pursuant to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 31.5.1995 for the same purpose. He submits that the claimants therein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the market value was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Cent. He submits that aggrieved by the said fixation, the Government carried the matter by way of appeal vide L.A.A.S. No.149 of 2007 and the claimant filed Cross Objections (SR) No.4404 of 2007. He submits that a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide orders dated 21.2.2011 dismissed the appeal preferred by the State and allowed the Cross Objections. In so far as the present case is concerned, he submits that the learned Reference Court had placed reliance on the orders passed in O.P. No.7 of 2000 and in view of the orders in L.A.A.S. No.149 of 2007 referred to above, the appeal preferred by the Government is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and on appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the order under challenge warrants any interference by this Court? Point: 7. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate that some of the appeals filed against the common order have already been disposed of. When 4 LAAS_565_2008 once an appeal arising out of a common order is decided/disposed of, perhaps the same decision would apply to the pending appeals. In fact one such appeal L.A.A.S. No.564 of 2008 filed against the order in O.P. No.14 of 2000 was dismissed as withdrawn. Be that as it may. As the appeal is argued on merits, the same is being disposed of with reference to the material on record. 8. In support of the claim for enhancement, on behalf of the respondent/claimant P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 Award No.40 of 1999–2000 dated 05.10.2000 was marked. 9. The learned Reference Court while referring to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent and recording a finding that the subject matter land is Kallam land and in respect of the said lands, which are situated in Survey Nos.501 and 581/1 of Vanala Village, O.P. No.7 of 2000 was filed and the market value was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per Cent, and had taken the same into consideration for fixation of market value. Though the learned Reference Court as on the date of disposal of O.P. No.7 of 2000 was under the impression that no appeal was preferred against the orders in O.P. No.7 of 2000, as seen from the order dated 21.2.2011, the appeal preferred by the Government against the orders in O.P. No.7 of 2000 was dismissed vide orders dated 21.2.2011 in L.A.A.S. No.149 of 2007. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, fixation of market value at Rs.2,000/- per Cent by the Reference Court in the said O.P., was not interfered with. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the lands are situated in the very same Village i.e., Vanala and the purpose for which the lands were acquired is same and in fact the Section 4(1) Notification for the acquisition of lands in question was issued on 21.6.1999, four years subsequent to the earlier Notification dated 31.5.1995. 5 LAAS_565_2008 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reliance on the orders passed in O.P. No.7 of 2000 for fixation of market value is just and valid. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader are rejected. This Court see no reasons to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Reference Court. The point is, accordingly, answered. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J March 06, 2025 vasu