IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 21 OF 2007 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, C. Belagai Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND 1. Kurva Pakkeranna (died), S/o. Tuggalappa, aged 37 years. Cultivation R/o. Gollaladoddi (V), Nandikotkur (Tq). 2. Kuruva Malamma, W/o. Late K Pakkeranna, Aged 60 D.No.4-102, Gollaladoddi (V), H/o. Burandoddi (V) Kurnool District. (Respondent No.2 is brought on record as L.R of deceased sole respondent as per Hon’ble Court Order dt; 9.11.2006 in L.A.A.S M.P. No.2394/2006) years, R/o. ...Respondent/Claimant Appeal filed under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the decree and judgment of the court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in O.P No.4051 of 1986 dated 12-07-1990. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of GP for Appeals for the Appellant, and none appeared for the Respondent. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed 2. That there be no order as to costs in this LAAS. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The ll Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Three CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.21 of 2007 O * 1 1 FEB 2025 Current Section DISMISSING THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 21 OF 2007 Appeal filed under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the decree and judgment of the court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in O.P No.4051 of 1986 dated 12-07-1990. Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, C. Belagai Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND 1. Kurva Pakkeranna (died), S/o. Tuggalappa, aged 37 years. Cultivation, R/o. Gollaladoddi (V), Nandikotkur (Tq). 2. Kuruva Malamma, W/o. Late K Pakkeranna, Aged 60 years, R/o. D.No.4-102, Gollaladoddi (V), H/o. Burandoddi (V) Kurnool District. (Respondent No.2 is brought on record as L.R of deceased sole respondent as per Hon’ble Court Order dt: 9.11.2006 in L.A.A.S M.P. No.2394/2006) ...Respondent/Claimant F * 1 0 Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.S.Rayalu, GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 0 APHC010326242007 -pHE 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 AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.21 of 2007 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, C.Belgal ... Appellant AND Kurva Pakkaeeranna, S/o.Tuggalappa (died) and another ... Respondents Mr.T.S.Rayalu, G.P. for Appeals Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent(s): The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (pe/'NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1990 in O.P. No.4051 of 1986 on the file of the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The respondent No.1 filed the said O.P. under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) seeking enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, C.Belgal. ' I 'ly N.i 2 LAAS_21_2007 2. As per the material available on record, the brief facts of the case are that for the purpose of providing house-sites to the S.Cs, B.Cs and E.B.Cs of Gollaladoddi H/o Buramdoddi Village, a Notification dated 07.1.1984 under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued for acquiring the land of an extent of Acs. 13.29 cents in Survey Nos.134/2B, 135/2A and 135/2B of the said Village. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.3/84-85, dated 29.1.1985 awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the lands situated in Survey Nos.134/2B, 135/2A and 135/2B and Rs.11,000/- per acre for the land of an extent of Ac.3.00 situated in Survey No.134/2B. In the O.P., on behalf of the respondents/claimants R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 3. 4. The learned Reference Court, after considering the material on record, fixed the compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per acre for non-irrigable dry lands and Rs.25,000/- per acre for Irrigable lands. The learned Government Pleader assailing the said enhancement/ fixation, inter alia, contends that the order of the Reference Court is not sustainable and is liable to be interfered with. 5. He submits that the Reference Court went wrong in taking into consideration post-Notification sale transaction vide Ex.B.4 dated 05.5.1984 in fixing the compensation for the dry lands. He also contends that there is no basis for fixing the compensation in respect of irrigable lands @ Rs.25,000/- per acre. He submits that variation of Rs.10,000/- between the dry lands and irrigable lands is without any rationale and therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. ■-y 3 LAAS 21 2007 considered the submissions made and perused the material on record and on appreciation of the same, the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court on the ground that the fixation of compensation by the Reference Court is without any basis, unreasonable or not justified? 6. We have Point: 7. As noticed above, to substantiate the case of the respondents/ examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B.1 to transaction dated 24.6.1981 wherein an extent of claimants, they got B.5. Ex.B.1 is a sale Ac.1.06% cents of dry land in Survey No.134 of the same Village was sold for Rs.16,000/-r So far as Ex.B.2 is concerned, an extent of Ac.0.20 No. 124 of same Village was sold on cents of dry land in Survey 07.5.1982 for Rs.3,000/-, which works out to Rs. 15,000/- per acre. No doubt as submitted by the learned Government Pleader Ex.B.4 is a post Notification sale transaction dated 05.5.1984, but the learned Reference about the above referred sale transactions conclusions for fixing the market value of dry land @ Court while discussing recorded the Rs.15.000/- per acre. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “As the Ex-B-1, B-2 and B.4 uniformly show the rate of dry land in said village at Rs. 15,000/- constantly during the years 1981 to 1984, the claimants dry. land under acquisition to which rate of Rs 10,000/- per acre only is awarded by L.A.O. is remaining entitled as a proper and justifiable rate of compensation, the said rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. Therefore, there appears no justification either in the L.A.O's awarding of to the dry lands under acquisition nor there rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre appears any justification in the claimants claim for a rate of Rs.20,000/- compensation, for dry lands under acquisition. Therefore, market valuation rate of per acre as the claimants dry lands are held entitled to a 4 LAAS_21 2007 Rs.15,000/- per acre only as claimed at the earliest envisaged in Ex.B.1, B.2 and B.4 transaction of sale, justifiable rate of compensation for their dry lands under which a rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre was awarded by the LAO Further in so far as the irrigable lands Reference Court, by taking the nature of lands into the compensation @ Rs.25,000/- learned Reference Court is clearly reflected in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the Order under challenge. Be that as it may. possible time and as as a proper and acquisition to 8. are concerned, the learned consideration, fixed per acre and the reasoning of the 9. It is appropriate to mention here that there is no dispute with regard to the two categories of the lands referred to above. In such circumstances, the differentiation in the market value fixed by the Reference Court keeping in view the nature of the land, in our considered opinion, cannot be found fault with. 10. It is also relevant to point out here that the Notification Section 4(1) of the LA Act in respect of the land in question, was issued in the year 1984, whereas Ex.B.1 sale transaction is of the year 1981 wherein the dry land was sold @ Rs. 15,000/- under per acre. Even if 10% escalation is taken into consideration, the value of the dry land Rs.21,000/- per acre would be as on the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. In fact, the learned Reference Court had not only Rs.15,000/-per taken the said factor into consideration and awarded acre so far as the dry lands are concerned. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the market value fixed by the Reference Court is just and reasonable and the order under challenge warrants no interference by this Court. The point is, accordingly, answered. 5 LAAS 21 2007 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f?r ^ ' SECTION OFFICER To, \ \ 1. The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. Two CCs to GP for Appeal, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.(for dispatch of Lower Court records) I 4. Three CD Copies SAM . »* vna ✓ HIGH COURT DATED;23/01/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS.No.21 of 2007 DISMISSING THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT