APHC010003522014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: The Special Deputy Collector ( SRBC, Kurnool District. Ambati Pedda Gurrappa & Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH 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: 276 of 2014 The Special Deputy Collector (LA), ...APPELLANT AND Others ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): RATHANGA PANI REDDY NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3495] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS 2 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per NJS, J) The present appeal is filed against the Order dated 11.11.2009 in O.P.No.51 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereby the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the subject matter lands was enhanced in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act from Rs.38,000/- per acre to Rs.79,000/- per acre. 2. Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants. Perused the material on record. 3. For the purpose of excavation of 9R, 11L and 12L Minors of Block No.XVI of the Srisailam Right Branch Canal, an extent of Ac.20.99 cents of land situated in Mayalur village of Uyyalawada Mandal, Kurnool District was proposed for acquisition and in pursuance of the same, a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 08.03.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands into one single category i.e., dry lands. During the Award Enquiry, he considered as many as 70 sale transactions relating to the sales of lands which took place in the village within the period of three years immediately preceding the publication of the Draft Notification, but discarded them on the premise that they were not reflecting the correct and reasonable market values. Adopting the market value in respect of the lands under Award No.4 of 2001-02 dated 15.06.2001 3 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 which was fixed @ Rs.38,000/- per acre, he awarded the same compensation for the subject matter lands. The respondents / claimants while lodging the protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the market values fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for their lands to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. 4. Before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. A copy of the Award No.53/ 2001-02 dated 30.03.2002 was marked as Ex.B1. The learned Reference Court after considering the matter scrupulously by going through the oral and documentary evidence and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bheem Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others1, Ranjith Singh v. Union Territory of Chhattisgarh2 and a decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Valluri Veerabhadra Rao and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, East Godavari District3 etc., relied on Ex.A9 i.e., Order in O.P.No.409 of 2002 dated 30.07.2008 for determining the market value, inter alia, observing that in Ex.A9, the Court had an occasion to deal with Exs.A1 to A3 and A5 in detail and the market value arrived at in Ex.A9 is as a result of the synthesis of the market values determined by the Courts from time to time on various occasions in connection with the acquisition of lands made under different 1 2003(10) SCC 529 2 AIR 1993 SC 227 3 (1998) 3 ALD 29 4 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 Awards for the same project. The Reference Court while assigning reasons including for discarding Ex.A6, a Registered sale transaction dated 12.04.1999, took the market value fixed in Ex.A9 @ Rs.70,000/- per acre into consideration and added value appreciation @ 10% p.a., and thus finally fixed the market value @ Rs.79,057/- (i.e., Rs.70,000/- and Rs.9,057/-) and rounded it up as Rs.79,000/- per acre. Be that as it may. 5. This Court is required to fix the just and reasonable compensation in respect of the lands under acquisition by examining the material on record, more particularly in the light of the submissions assailing the order under challenge. 6. The learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contended that the order of the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation from Rs.38,000/- per acre to Rs.79,000/- per acre is without any valid basis, highly excessive and warrants interference by this Court. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred in relying on Exs.A7 and A9 i.e., Award No.5/2001-02 dt.25.06.2001 and Order in O.P.No.409 of 2002 respectively concerning the lands in Thudumuladinne village, whereas the subject matter lands are situated in an altogether village i.e., Mayalur. He submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in adopting the land value of the other villages and applying escalation of 10% p.a., without any evidence to prove that there is continuous enhancement of land prices nearby the lands under acquisition. In any case, the learned Government Pleader submits that the enhancement 5 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 of compensation is unreasonable, unjust and therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants advanced arguments to sustain the impugned order, stating inter alia that the oral and documentary evidence were scrupulously examined, cogent reasons were assigned for enhancement by the Reference Court and as such the same warrants no interference by this Court. He also contends that in fact, in respect of the lands acquired under Award No.52/ 2001-02 dated 30.03.2002 which are situated in the very same Mayalur village, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which was enhanced to Rs.79,000/- per acre vide orders in the L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 was deposited in favour of the concerned land losers and in view of the same, the subject matter lands which are acquired for the purpose of the same project should also be paid the same compensation of Rs.79,000/- and seek dismissal of the present appeal. He also relies on the order dated 05.12.2024 passed in L.A.A.S.(SR) No.5782 of 2012 stating that the compensation / market value fixed by the Reference Court in respect of the lands situated in the neighbouring Reddipalli village, fixed at Rs.90,000/- per acre for dry lands by the Reference Court was confirmed by the High Court. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 6 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 9. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for determination is whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.38,000/- to Rs.79,000/- per acre for dry lands is without valid basis, excessive and as such, calls for interference by this Court. 10. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents with reference to depositing the amounts pursuant to the orders of the Reference Court in the L.A.O.P.No.50 of 2003 and the orders dated 05.12.2024 in L.A.A.S.(SR) No.5787 of 2012 are not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. Be that as it may. 11. The subject matter lands which are situated in Mayalur Village were acquired pursuant to the Section 4 (1) Notification dated 08.03.2002 and the Land Acquisition Officer vide Ex.B1-Award No.53/2001-02 dated 30.03.2002, fixed the market value @ Rs.38,000/- per acre. In support of their claim for enhancement @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondents / claimants. P.W.2 was one among the land owners whose lands situated in Thudumuladinne Village were acquired under Ex.A7- Award No.5 / 2001-02 dated 25.06.2001 and on reference vide Orders in O.P.No.409 of 2002 dated 30.07.2008 (Ex.A9), the market value was enhanced from Rs.38,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per acre. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief examination categorically asserted that the lands under the present acquisition and the lands acquired in Thudumuladinne Village are for the same project, possess similar features. P.W.2 also deposed that both Mayalur 7 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 and Thudumuladinne are adjacent villages having their peripheries touching each other. To substantiate that the said villages are in close proximity along with the other villages i.e., Reddipalli and Chinthakunta, they placed reliance on Exs.A4 and A8 i.e., the true Copy of Index plan of Block No.XVI of the Srisailam Right Branch Canal issued by the Divisional Accounts Officer (works) and Ex.A8-Certified copy of the Map relating to Koyalakunta erstwhile Taluk. Further, they placed reliance on Ex.A6 dated 12.04.1999, a Registered Sale transaction wherein an extent of Ac.1.06 cents of land situated in neighbouring Gulladarthi Village was sold for Rs.74,500/- i.e., @ Rs.70,000/- per acre. However, no evidence is let in to consider the said sale transaction that it was in respect of the lands in the village in close proximity to Mayalur Village where the lands in question are situated. Be that as it may. 12. Insofar as the fixation of market value in respect of the subject matter lands, the Land Acquisition Officer relied on the previous Award No.4/2001-02 dated 15.06.2001, but the same was not exhibited nor was any oral evidence adduced before the Reference Court. Therefore, this Court would be left with the material available on record to examine whether the determination of market value by the Reference Court is just and reasonable. The respondents / claimants was successful in driving home the point that the subject matter lands and the lands in Thudumuladinne Village which were acquired vide Ex.A7-Award dated 25.06.2001 are having similar features and in close proximity. The Draft Notification in respect of the lands acquired in Thudumuladinne Village was issued on 20.11.2000 and on Reference vide 8 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 Orders dated 30.07.2008 in O.P.No.409 of 2002 (Ex.A9), the compensation was enhanced from Rs.38,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per acre. 13. As noted earlier, P.W.2 testified that both Mayalur and Thudumuladinne Villages are adjacent villages having their peripheries touching each other and nothing contra was elicited in the cross examination. Therefore, ExA7-Award and the orders of the Reference Court Ex.A9 thereon fixing the market value @ Rs.70,000/- per acre can be taken as basis for fixing just compensation in respect of the lands in question. 14. The learned Reference Court after discussing the evidence both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of the respondents / claimants and taking into consideration the decisions referred to supra, had taken the material documents into consideration for fixing the market value for the subject matter lands, by assigning cogent reasons. In the Order dated 30.07.2008 (Ex.A9), the Reference Court fixed the market value of the lands @ Rs.70,000/- per acre as on 20.11.2000, whereas the subject matter lands were required pursuant to the Notification dated 08.03.2002. 15. Taking the time lag into account and applying the value appreciation @ 10% p.a., the learned Reference Court arrived at the compensation@Rs.79,057/- per acre (Rs.70,000/- + Rs.9,057/-), but rounded up the same to Rs.79,000/- per acre. Such a fixation in the considered opinion of this Court reflects just and reasonable market value for the acquired lands 9 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 and cannot be treated as excessive or without any valid basis. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader are rejected. 16. The contention with regard to value appreciation @ 10%, advanced by him also merits no appreciation, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v Union of India4, wherein it held 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. 17. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reasons to interfere with the well considered order of the Reference Court. The point is answered accordingly against the appellant. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J BLV Dt.30.01.2025 4 (2004) 10 SCC 627 10 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 11 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_276_2014 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO L.A.A.S.No: 276 of 2014 Date:30.01.2025 BLV