APHC010511872015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA L.A.A.S. Nos.41, 42, 44, 53, 69, 74, 76, 79, 89 & 135 OF 2015 Between: Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, G.N.S.S., Unit–1, Nandyal, Kurnool District ...Petitioner AND Peram Jagadeeswaramma, W/o.Late Jayachandra Reddy, R/o.Ramapuram (V), Owk (M), Kurnool (Dist.) ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : The G.P. for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.Harija Akkineni The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble NJS,J) These appeals have been preferred by the State against the separate orders dated 28.2.2014 in L.A.O.P. Nos.1096, 1093, 1103, 1101, 1100, 1099, 1105, 1097, 1102 and 1094 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. Heard Mr.S.Bala Mohan, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Also heard Mr.C.Upendra, learned counsel representing the respondents/ claimants. Perused the material on record. 2 LAAS_41_2015 and batch 3. For the purpose of excavation of Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS) Flow Canal starting from Owk Reservoir to Kadapa District, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 22.8.2005 was issued, for the acquisition of the land situated in various Survey Numbers of Ramapuram Village of Owk Mandal belonging to the respondents/claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry vide Award No.8 of 2006–’07 dated 08.8.2006 fixed the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. The respondents/claimants while receiving the compensation under protest sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer, but Ex.A.1 Copy of the Award dated 08.8.2006, Ex.A.2 Award Proceedings and Ex.A.3 Section 4(1) Notification were marked with consent. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked on their behalf. Commissioner’s Plan in O.P. No.1096 of 2007, Commissioner’s Report, Royalty Inspector’s Report and Combined Sketch of Ramapuram Village were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. The learned Reference Court after considering the evidence on record fixed the market value of the subject matter lands @ Rs,3,75,000/- per acre. 4. Mr.S.Bala Mohan, learned Government Pleader for Appeals assails the fixation of the compensation, inter alia contending that the same is without any valid basis and any rationale. It is his main contention that Ex.B.2 Judgment in A.S. No.1748 of 2005, which is relied on for determination of the market value, was in respect of the earlier acquisition and as the notification in question was issued on 22.4.2005, that the Reference Court ought to have fixed the market value by applying the value appreciation. However, the Reference Court went wrong in taking 3 LAAS_41_2015 and batch the time gap of thirteen (13) years and the same is not just and proper. He also submits that the value appreciation @ 12% adopted by the Reference Court is also not sustainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He contends that Exs.B.1 to B.3 are in respect of the lands situated in Sunkesula Village whereas the lands under the present acquisition are situated in Ramapuram Village, which is far away to Sunkesula and therefore, the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking the said documents into consideration for the purpose of comparison/fixation of market value of the subject matter lands. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the appeals and to set aside the order of the Reference Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, per contra, made submissions to sustain the order of the Reference Court, the same warrants no interference by this Court. 6. On consideration of the contentions raised, the point that arises for adjudication is: “Whether the order under challenge is liable to be interfered with on the premise that the same is without any basis and the market value fixed is excessive?” Point: 7. Before answering the point, it may be appropriate to state that several extents of land in various survey numbers of Sunkesula Village were acquired for the purpose of GNSS Project. Number of L.A.A.Ss (Land Acquisition Appeal Suits) pertaining to the said Project were disposed of by this Court. Be that as it may. In the present case, to substantiate the claim for enhancement, the respondents/claimants placed reliance on the decision dated 26.3.2007 in A.S. No.1748 of 2005 (Ex.B.2). A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4 LAAS_41_2015 and batch at Hyderabad while examining the orders passed by the Reference Court with reference to the acquisition of land in respect of the very same Village vide Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 18.5.1992 determined the compensation @ Rs.1,49,000/- per acre. The State aggrieved by the said orders, carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in S.L.P. No.6540 of 2008, by orders dated 05.5.2008 (Ex.B.3), the compensation was reduced from Rs.1,49,000/- to Rs.1,48,000/- per acre. Though the learned Government Pleader argued that the lands, which are situated in Ramapuram Village are far away from the lands in Sunkesula Village, it may be noted that no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. On the other hand, it was brought on record on behalf of the respondents/claimants that Sunkesula Village and Ramapuram Village and Cherlopalli Village are neighbouring Villages and so far as the subject matter lands are concerned they are having mining potentiality. The learned Reference Court while appreciating the evidence on record, at paragraph No.15 observed as follows: 15. … The Sunkesula village and Ramapuram village and also Cherlopalli villages are neighbouring villages. The GNSS Canal and also SRBC canals are passing through the above said villages. In O.P. No.167/1996 as shown in Exs.B1 to B3 the lands of the Sunkesula village acquired for the purpose of SRBC (Srisailam Right Bank Canal) in the present OP the land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of GNSS (Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi) which starts from Owk Reservoir to Kadapa District. 8. R.W.2 who was the claimant in O.P. No.147 of 1996 and O.P. No.167 of 1996 deposed that the market value of the land was fixed at Rs.1,49,000/- per acre on the basis of the sale deed of the land situated in neighbouring Village and the same was reduced to Rs.1,48,000/- per acre by the High Court. R.W.3 the Advocate Commissioner supported the case of the respondents/claimants that the subject matter lands are 5 LAAS_41_2015 and batch having mining potentiality and further that GNSS Canal is running through the acquired lands. He categorically stated that he and the geologist observed that the subject matter lands are having house site potentiality and also mining potentiality. R.W.5, who was the claimant in O.P. No.1104 of 2007, also supported the case of the claimants with regard to the mining potentiality. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to mention here that though on behalf of the Referring Officer Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked, in the absence of exhibiting the sales statistics on the basis of which the compensation was determined, the Court has no option except to consider the fixation of the market value on the basis of the documents relied on by the respondents/claimants (see Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona1). Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd., vs. Sendhabai Vastram Patel2, instances of sale transactions of similar lands situated in the same village or neighbouring villages can be taken for determination of the market value. 9. Admittedly in respect of earlier notification dated 18.5.1992 for acquisition of the land in the neighbouring Village, the market value was fixed @ Rs.1,48,000/- per acre. The notification in respect of the subject matter lands was issued on 11.12.2007 and there is a time gap of more than fifteen (15) years. The law with regard to value appreciation is well- settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v. Union of India3 was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the High Court of Delhi. While working out fair market value of the subject matter lands therein 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 1 (1988) 3 SCC 751 2 (2005) 6 SCC 454 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 6 LAAS_41_2015 and batch 1959 to 1965, 10% p.a from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% p.a. from 1975 onwards was considered to be reasonable, adopted escalation of market value @ 12% p.a., and the same was upheld. In the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the market value ought to have been fixed as on the date of the orders in A.S. No.1748 of 2005 (Ex.B.2) is rejected. 10. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in L.A.A.S. No.167 of 2011 and batch, this Court had an occasion to elaborately deal with the Review Petitions filed by the claimants in the Appeals preferred by the State concerning the land situated in Cherlopalli Village adjacent to Sunkesula Village. While recalling the common judgment dated 28.4.2016 passed in the said appeals preferred by the State, the Review Petitions were allowed on 18.7.2025 and the value was fixed on the basis of the orders in A.S. No.1748 of 2005, dated 26.3.2007. In the aforesaid circumstances, the value appreciation was taken as 10% per annum. Therefore, considering the submission made by the learned Government Pleader the value appreciation as adopted by the Reference Court at 12% per annum in the present case is reduced to 10%. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order under challenge, except with regard to value appreciation. The point is, accordingly, answered. 11. In the result, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suits are partly allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J August 28, 2025 vasu