APHC010473222011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.187 of 2011 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, TOP., Nandyal. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Yasa Venkateswarlu, S/o.Seelanna, R/o.Ernapadu Village, Band! Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the Order and Decree dated 06.08.2010 passed in O.P.No.445 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.S.Rayalu, GP for Appeals and none appeared for the Respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Land Acquisition Appeal Suit be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT.REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// driO^^FICER SE To 1. The II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. Two CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 DECREE LAAS No. 187 of 2011 DISMISSING THE LAAS •f APHC010473222011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI i THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITIONAPPEAL SUIT No.187 of 2011 Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the Order and Decree dated 06.08.2010 passed in O.P.No.445 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District. Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, TOP., Nandyal. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Yasa Venkateswarlu, S/o.Seelanna, R/o.Ernapadu Village, Band! Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T.S.Rayalu, GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared The Court made the following order: APHC010473222011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No:187 of 2011 [3526] Between; The Spl Deputy Collector, Land Acuisition Officer, T.G.P Nandyal. ...Appellant AND Yasa Venkateswarlu S/o. Seelanna, Age: 37 years, R/o. Ernapadu (V), Bandi Atmakur (M), Kurnool Dist. Counsel for the Appellant; 1. GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent; ...Respondent 1. The Court made the following Judgment; The present appeal is preferred against the common order dated 06.08.2010 passed in L.A.O.P Nos.443, 444, 445 and 446 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. At the time of considering the appeal, it is submitted by Mr. T S Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals, that the matter is squarely covered order dated 29.08.2024 passed by this Court in L.A.A.S Nos.23, 66 and by an 188 of 2011. 3. Perusing the said order and for the reasons alike, the present appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR . //TRUE COPY// SECTO^N OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, Kurnool District, (with records) 2. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to despatch the trial court records) 4. Two CD Copies TK vna ♦Along with Photocopy of Certified copy dated 29.08.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court irt LAAS No.23,66 and 188 of 2011. HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS No. 187 of 2011 DISMISSING THE LAAS T >■ APHC010001232011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFOUR [34! 6^ 7^ OO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.23. 66 & 188 of 2011 Between: 1.THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICER, T.G.P. NANDYAL LAND ACQUISITION ...APPELLANT AND 1.GAZULA RAMAIAH, S/o. Ch. Chalamaiah, R/o. Ernapadu (V), Bandi Atmakur (M), Kurnool District. (L.A.A.S.No.23 of 2011) ...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT lA NO: 2 OF 2011 fLAASMP 632 OF 20111 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant: 1.GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. - The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 06.8.2010 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in Original Petition Nos.443, 444 and 446 of 2009 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 12,600/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre, the present appeals have been preferred. LAAS_23_66_188 2011 For excavation of Ernapadu Major Distributory Canal from KM 4.300 to 5.984 KM in Block No.7 of Telugu Ganga Project, a Gazette Notification dated 04.9.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of total extent of Acs. 12.96 cents situated in various survey numbers of Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal. The Draft Notification was published on 12.9.1996 and after issuance of Draft Declaration, Award enquiry was conducted on 08.12.2001 and 27.12.2001. Subsequently, Award No.14 of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was passed. For the purpose of awarding compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had classified the subject matter lands into two categories i.e.. Category No.1-Rain fed dry lands and Category No.11-Dry lands having irrigation through sources like well, bore wells and fixed the market value at Rs. 10,500/- and Rs. 12,600/- per acre respectively, while allowing the other benefits of solatium, additional market value etc. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants received the compensation under protest and sought for enhancement of the compensation of the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, by referring the matter to the Civil Court. 3. Before the Reference Court, the claimant in O.P. No.443 of 2009 got examined himself as R.W.1 besides examining R.Ws.2 to 4 on his behalf and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. The Referring Officer has not LAAS_23 66 188 2011 adduced any oral evidence. Ex.A.1, copy of the Award No. 14 of 2001 marked with consent. was 4. While deciding the question as to whether the Award No. 14/2001 dated 31.12.2001 does not adequately compensate the claimants for the loss of their lands, the learned Reference Court, after considering the material on record, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by enhancement of compensation in respect of Category No. 11 Lands from Rs. 12,600/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre. State filed these appeals. 5. Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader, assailing the said enhancement, inter alia contends that the learned Reference Court without any valid basis enhanced the compensation and the same is not sustainable. It is her contention that the differential amount of Rs.2,100/-, which is added to the value of the land at Rs. 18,000/- per acre, is without any valid basis and no cogent reasons were assigned for adding the said amount of Rs.2,100/-. She also contends that the value appreciation of the subject lands at the rate of 12% per annum, as adopted by the learned Reference Court, is not tenable and no reasons much less cogent reasons were assigned for fixing the same. Placing reliance the decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile common High Court in L.A.A.S.No.1 of 2010 and batch, dated 21.11.2013, she contends that at the most, escalation of prices may be taken at 10% and the value appreciation should have been fixed at 10% per annum. In any event. on T LAAS_23_66_188 2011 the learned Government Pleader submits that the enhancement, as made by the learned Reference Court, is on higher side and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Making the said submissions, she seeks to allow the appeals. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record. It is pertinent to note that large extents of lands were acquired for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project canal in the year 1990 and in respect of the lands in Chinnadevalapuram Village, as per the evidence adduced by the claimants, the market value was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and on reference, the same was enhanced to Rs. 18,000/- per acre. The subject lands are adjacent to Chinnadevalapuram Village and they are similar in nature with regard to its potentiality and market value. 7. Be that as it may. The learned Reference Court referring to Exs.B.1 and B.4 i.e., common order in O.P.Nos.1 to 19 of 2009 and Appeal No. 1068 of 2004 in respect of the lands situate in various Villages along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal, wherein it opined that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded insufficient compensation and enhanced the same, appreciated the matter as to whether the present claimants are entitled for enhancement on similar lines. However, the learned Reference Court, took into consideration Ex.B.5 i.e., common order in O.P.No.5 of 1994 and batch, dated was 5 LAAS 23 66 188 2011 30.10.2004 in respect of Award No.30/1 991-92 dated 25.3.1991, wherein the compensation fixed at Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10,600/- per acre in respect of uncultivated rain-fed dry lands and cultivated rain-fed dry lands of Peddadevalapuram Village were enhanced to Rs. 17,400/- and Rs. 18,000/- per acre respectively. The learned Reference Court had also considered the aspect that all these Villages are adjacent to each other, which are along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal and all these Villages are comparatively proximate to each other. 8. Assigning the said reasons, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.36,000/- from Rs. 12,600/-. Though the learned Government Pleader had sought to impress upon this Court that the amount as enhanced by the learned Reference Court is without any valid basis and no reasons with regard to the differential amount of Rs.2,100/- are assigned, we are not inclined to appreciate these contentions, as the learned Reference Court had taken note that the lands acquired from the respondents/claimants are irrigated dry lands whereas the lands, which are the subject matter of Ex.B.5 are rain-fed dry lands for which the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 10,600/- to Rs. 18,000/- per acre. Therefore, this Court feels that adding differential amount of Rs.2,100/- in respect of irrigated dry lands is not unreasonable. 9. In so far as the other contention with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench referred to above, it would appear that in the T 6 LAAS_23_66_188 2011 said cases, no documentary evidence was available and therefore, the Division Bench held that value appreciation cannot be adopted. The said decision is of no much aid to the appellant herein as, in the present case the claimants adduced the oral and documentary evidence, which goes to show that the subject matter lands are irrigated dry lands and the appreciation of market value at 12% per annum, on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v. Union of India 1 as arrived at by the learned Reference Court is legally valid. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the firm opinion that the enhancement of compensation by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J August 29, 2024 vasu (2004) 10 see 627