APHC010017852012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THIRTIETH, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: Choppa Seetha Rami Reddy, S/o.Bala Muni Reddy, Aged 56 years, Siddalapalli, H/o.Tallapaka Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. The Land Acquisition Officer Rajampeta, Kadapa District. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.Mr.D.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR APPEALS 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SATURDAY DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No: 49 of 2022 Choppa Seetha Rami Reddy, S/o.Bala Muni Reddy, Aged 56 years, Siddalapalli, H/o.Tallapaka Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. ...APPELLANT AND Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO, Rajampeta, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent: NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3495] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT 2 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tirupati Region, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’), dated 08.11.2019 in L.A.O.P.No.45 of 2018. 2. The appellant herein filed the said O.P., under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation / market value in respect of an extent of Ac.0.27 ¼ cents situated in Survey No.962/1A1 of Rajampeta village, Kadapa District. The Land Acquisition Officer vide Award No.2 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018, fixed the market value @ Rs.20,78,000/- per acre (Rs.429.33 per sq.yd.,) as against the claim of Rs.15,000/- per sq.yd. 3. Before the Authority, the claimant / appellant examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19. The respondent / Referring Officer (LAO) was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 documents were marked. 4. The learned Authority vide Judgment under appeal, disposed of the O.P., the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- (a) The compensation awarded by the Collector at the rate of Rs.20,78,000/- per acre is enhanced as Rs.7,000/- per sq.yard for the acquired land; 3 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 (b) The claimant is entitled to damages for use and occupation from 10.01.2010 to 08.11.2017 (the date of preliminary notification) at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation; (c) The claimant is entitled to the statutory benefits under Act 30 of 2013 on the enhanced market value; (d) The claimant shall file calculation memo in the court within one month on the basis of the reliefs granted in this judgment by giving notice to Government Pleader; (e) In view of the special circumstances and the relief granted in clause (b) of the reliefs, no separate relief is granted U/s.72 of the Act. (f) In the circumstances, no costs. 5. Dissatisfied with the said Judgment, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Heard Mr.D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant / claimant and Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for appeals representing the respondent. 7. Perused the material on record. The relevant facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant for enhancement of compensation in respect of the subject matter land may be summarized for disposal of the instant appeal. 8. The possession of an extent of Ac.0.27 ¼ cents situated in Survey No.962/1A1 of Rajampeta Village was taken over on 28.06.1999 for the purpose of construction of a High Level Bridge across Chakralamadugu river, Rajampeta village. No land acquisition proceedings were initiated. Therefore, W.P.No.932 of 2014 was filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh to initiate 4 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 land acquisition proceedings. The orders passed in the said writ petition were not complied with, hence Contempt Case No.397 of 2015 was filed. Subsequently the Roads & Buildings Department requested the District Collector, Kadapa to initiate land acquisition proceedings. Ultimately, the District Collector approved the Preliminary Notification proposals dated 31.10.2017 under Section 11 (1) of the Act and a Notification dated 02.11.2017 was published in two daily newspapers. Vide Ex.B1-Award No.2 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018, the Collector fixed the compensation of Rs.11,51,951/- for the said extent of Ac.0.27 ¼ cents. Stating that the fixation of the said compensation is unreasonable and far below the market rate, reference under Section 64 of the Act was sought to enhance the market value @ Rs.15,000/- per sq.yd. However, the learned Authority without considering the oral and documentary evidence on record in a proper perspective, allowed the claim of the appellant only partly by fixing the value @ Rs.7000/- per sq.yd., though the appellant was entitled to the reliefs claimed in toto. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the subject matter land is situated in a commercial area, it is approximately just four kilometers from Rajampeta and even as per the basic value register of Rajampeta (Ex.A3) and the evidence elicited during the cross examination of the officials (R.W.1), the market value in the year 2017 is Rs.8,500/- per sq.yd. Referring to Section 26(1)(a) of the Act, he contends that the Authority having found fault with the procedure adopted by the Collector for determining the market value of the land in question, went wrong in taking the basic value of the 5 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 year 2015 among three years basic values of 2015, 2016 and 2017 and fixing Rs.7000/- per sq.yd. It is his contention that the question of rationalization does not arise and the authority ought to have enhanced the compensation / fixed the market value as contemplated under Section 26 (1)(a) of the Act. The learned counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to the admissions made by P.Ws.3 to 5 (witnesses summoned through Court) as also the admissions made by R.W.1 in the cross examination that the land in Survey No.962 is classified as commercial category, contends that the Authority ought to have adopted the basic value furnished by the Sub-Registrar Office (Ex.A3), which is prevailing as on the date of issuance of Preliminary Notification @ Rs.8,500/- per sq.yd. 10. Insofar as awarding of damages for use and occupation of the subject matter land, the learned counsel contends that the authority went wrong in not awarding adequate damages from the date of taking over possession till the date of issuance of 4(1) Notification and further that though Section 72 of the Act contemplates the payment of interest @ 9% pa., and 15% pa., in the circumstances mentioned therein, the learned Authority erroneously denied the statutory benefit to the appellant and the Judgment under challenge is liable to be interfered with for the said reason also. As regards limiting the appellant’s entitlement to damages for use and occupation from 10.01.2010 to 08.11.2017, he also contends that the learned Authority in the light of the statement made by the vendor (P.W.2) of the appellant that she has no objection for payment of compensation to the appellant, ought to have granted damages for use and occupation of the subject matter land from 28.06.1999 i.e., from the date of 6 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 dispossession. Stating that the learned Authority mis-understood the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Nandur, M.Canal v. Vilas Eknath Jadhav 1 , and placing reliance on the decisions reported in Balwan Singh & Ors., v. Land Acquisition Collector2 and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel & Others 3 etc., the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal. 11. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader on the other hand, vehemently contended that the learned Authority had assigned cogent reasons for fixing the market value of the subject matter land and therefore no interference is called for. He submits that in fact, the Authority ought to have deducted the development charges in accordance with the settled legal position. He also contended that the appellant is not entitled to any damages / rent on the premise that he was dispossessed from the subject matter land prior to issuance of the preliminary notification, much less in the absence of any sale deed confirming the right in respect of the subject matter land before execution of Registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.01.2010 in favour of the appellant. Making the said submissions, learned Government Pleader urges for dismissal of the appeal. 12. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced on both sides, the points that arise for consideration are – 1 AIR 2013 SC 3839 2 AIR 2016 SCC 1565 3 2025 INSC 408 7 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 (1) Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation? (2) Whether the appellant / claimant is entitled for damages from the date of taking over of the possession of the subject matter property @ 15% per annum? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled for interest under Section 72 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? 13. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant revolve around Ex.A3 and Section 26 of the Act. So, the fixation of the Market Value in respect of the land in question is examined with reference to the same. 14. Before adverting to the aspect of determination, it may also be pertinent to discuss the relevant oral and documentary evidence. PW 1 is the appellant-claimant. He got marked Exs.A1 to A19. The sheet anchor of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant / claimant is the market value particulars dated 01.03.2018 (Ex.A3) issued by the Sub-Registrar, Rajampet in respect of the Sy.No.962/1A1. The Sub-Registrar of Rajampet was examined as PW 5. As per Ex.A3, the value of the land per Sq.yard in Sy.No.962/1A1 is Rs.7,000/- in the year 2015, Rs.7,700/- in 2016 and Rs.8,500/- in the year 2017 respectively. In the cross-examination RW 1 i.e., RDO Rajampet who was the Land Acquisition Officer categorically admitted that : 8 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 a. the possession of the land was taken on 28.06.1999 without the consent of the land owner and acquisition proceedings were not initiated in 1999; b. after the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2017; c. the land in Sy.No.962 is classified as Commercial category; d. the value of the land in Sy.No.962/1A1 as per Ex.A3 is Rs.7,000/- per sq.yard in the year 2015; Rs.7,700/- per sq.yard in the year 2016 and Rs.8,500/- per sq.yard in the year 2017; e. he has not discussed or considered the values furnished by the SRO in Ex.A3 while determining the compensation; 15. Thus, the admissions made makes the position clear that the possession of the subject matter land was taken over on 28.06.1999 without issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prior to its repeal. Only after filing of the Writ Petition and the Contempt Case for non-implementation of the orders, Section 11(1) Notification under the provisions of the Act, 2013 was issued. For determination of the market value by the Collector, Section 26 of the Act envisages the criteria and the relevant portion of the same for ready reference is extracted hereunder: “Section 26: Determination of market value of land by Collector. (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:— (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or 9 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.” xxxxxxxxxxxxx 16. A reading of the said provision of law would go to show that the Collector shall adopt the criteria as set out in the Section 26 of the Act while assessing and determining the market value of the acquired land. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation on the basis of the sale statistics for the period of three years from 18.11.2014 to 18.11.2017. It would also appear from the order of the Authority under challenge, the LAO had considered the sales of the agricultural lands fit for house sites for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. However, the said sale transactions were not exhibited before the Authority. It is settled Law that unless the sale transactions forming basis for fixation of compensation by the LAO are exhibited, the same cannot be treated as evidence though a reference was made in the Award. [See: Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, Poona4]. Therefore, mere marking of Ex.B1-Award in the absence of documentary evidence supporting the fixation of market value by the LAO would not enure to the benefit of the State. In the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of the Referring Officer, the Appellate Court has no option except to examine the correctness 4 (1988) 3 SCC 751 10 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 or otherwise of the fixation of the market value only on the basis of the evidence let in by the claimant. 17. As noted earlier, the appellant-claimant in support of his case for enhancement placed strong reliance on Ex.A3 i.e., market value particulars furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Rajampet. Section 26 (1)(a) of the Act envisages the determination of the market value on the basis of the market value if any specified in the Indian Stamp Act for the registration of the sale deed or agreement to sell, where the land is situated. RW 1 in his cross- examination admitted the values as reflected in the said document Ex.A3. In such an event, this Court deems it appropriate to rely on the valuation as reflected in Ex.A3, more particularly when no contra evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation cited supra, wherein while examining the issue relating to the applicability of “theory of deduction” for determining the compensation payable under the Act, 2013 and the relevant provisions therein including Section 26, it was opined at para 21 as follows: “21. It is important to note that the values computed in terms of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 26 (1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013 are not to be averaged. The highest of the values as determined by Clauses (a) (b) (c) is to be treated as the market value under Section 26 (1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013.” 18. The learned Authority though relied on Ex.A3 for the purpose of arriving at the compensation, but rationalized the market value by taking the basic value of the year 2015 among three years (2015 to 2017) basic values. 11 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 Therefore, fixation of the rate at Rs.7,000/- per sq.yard, may not be correct and the appellant’s claim for enhancement cannot be brushed aside. In the light of the above expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is appropriate to adopt the market value of Rs.8,500/- per sq.yard existing as on the date of the Notification in the year 2017 for fixing the market value of the land in question. 19. However, it is also not in dispute that the acquired land is situated in the commercial area, as admitted by the R.W.1 and the market value reflected in Ex.A3 is per square yard. Therefore, while taking the potentiality of the land into consideration, the requirement of deductions towards development charges, cannot be lost sight of, though the State had not preferred appeal. Various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others5, ordains appropriate cuts / deductions towards development charges, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the sale exemplars in respect of the small extents of land can be taken into consideration for fixation of Market Value and observed that appropriate deductions ranging from 20% which may even go upto 80% can be made. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader with regard to the deductions merits consideration. 5 MANU/SC/1134/2024 12 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 20. It is evident from the order of the learned Authority, no development charges were deducted while determining the compensation in respect of the acquired land. No reasons were assigned for omitting the deductions. Be that as it may. In the light of the opinion expressed by this Court supra to take the market value at the rate of Rs.8,500/- per sq.yard, appropriate deductions have to be made as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Even if 20% is deducted towards development charges, the market value would be Rs.6,800/- per sq.yard, which is less than market value fixed by the Authority at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per sq.yard (without deductions). Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the Market Value at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per sq.yard. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. POINT No.2: 21. In so far as the contention with regard to the damages as awarded by the authority at the rate of 6% on the Market Value, the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be discussed. In R.L.Jain (D) by lrs., v DDA and Others6 a three member Bench of the Apex Court while resolving the conflict of opinion in Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd., v State of Gujarat7; and Union of India v Budh Singh8 on the issue as to whether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the claimant is entitled to interest for such anterior period in accordance with Section 34 of the Act, inter alia opined as follows: 6 (2004) 4 SCC 79 7 (1991) 1 SCC 262 8 (1995) 6 SCC 233 13 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 “18. In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded.” 22. However, in the subsequent decision in Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) by LRs v Land Acquisition Officer9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India looking to the facts and circumstances of the case although felt that the proper course would be to remand the matter to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the land losers would be entitled for being remained out of possession, was inclined to dispose of the appeal with a direction to pay additional interest at the rate of 15% p.a., on the amount awarded for the period from the date of dispossession till the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. In Tahera Khotoon and Others v Revenue Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer and Others10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia examined the issue as to whether the appellants therein are entitled for rent or damages from the date they were dispossessed till the date of preliminary notification. Following the decision in Madishetti Bala Ramul (referred to supra), the Apex Court directed the State Government to pay rent / damages @ 15% on the compensation awarded from the date the land 9 (2007) 9 SCC 650 10 (2014) 13 SCC 613 14 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 owners were dispossessed till the date of issuance of preliminary notification. In Balwan Singh’s case relied on by the counsel for the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while referring to above mentioned decisions disposed of the appeals with a direction to the respondents therein to Award additional interest by way of damages @ 15% p.a., for the period between 01.07.1984 i.e., the date when the appellants were dispossessed till 02.09.1993, the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 23. In the light of the above cited decisions, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant / claimant is entitled to damages @ 15% per annum. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to mention that rights in respect of the subject matter land accrued to the appellant only with effect from 12.01.2010, the date on which the GPA was executed in favour of the appellant. Obviously, for the said reason no ground was raised in the appeal about the entitlement of the appellant for damages prior to the said date. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for damages for the use and occupation of the subject matter land from 12.01.2010 to 08.11.2017 i.e., till the date of the preliminary notification. So far as determination of damages is concerned, three Member Bench of the Apex Court in R.L. Jain’s case (6 supra) opined that the same may be determined by the Collector and for delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing Bank rate may be awarded. However, keeping in view the length of time and the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme 15 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 Court, it is deemed appropriate to fix the interest for the said period @ 7.5% p.a. The point is answered accordingly. POINT No.3: 24. Section 72 of the Act contemplates payment of interest on excess compensation and such a statutory benefit cannot be denied. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned Authority in this regard is not valid. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Authority under the Act @ Rs.7,000/- per sq.yard holds good. The appellant is entitled to damages for use and occupation from 12.01.2010 to 08.11.2017 @ 7.5% per annum on the above said compensation. The appellant is also entitled to all the statutory benefits including interest under Section 72 of the Act. No order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Dt. 30.08.2025 BLV / SSV 16 NJS, J & TRR, J LAAS_49_2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No: 49 of 2022 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 30.08.2025 BLV / SSV