APHC010240812011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAND ACQUISITION 102, 103, 104, 105, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 157, 173, 174, 175, 306, 441, 599, 600, 601, 664, 67 LAAS No.994 of 2011 BETWEEN: The Land Acquisition Officer, Cum Revenue Divisional Officer Sri Ediga Chinna Balanna Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M V PRATAP REDDY The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 994, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 157, 173, 174, 175, 306, 441, 599, 600, 601, 664, 671, 676, 677, 678, 679, 999 of 2011 LAAS No.994 of 2011 The Land Acquisition Officer, Cum Revenue Divisional ...Appellant AND Sri Ediga Chinna Balanna ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS Respondent: M V PRATAP REDDY The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3526] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO , 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 157, 173, 1, 676, 677, 678, 679, ...Appellant ...Respondent 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos. 994, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 157, 173, 174, 175, 306, 441, 599, 600, 601, 664, 671, 676, 677, 678, 679, 999 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) The batch of land acquisition appeals arise against the common judgment and decree dated, 28.08.2009 delivered in O.P. No.70 of 2007 and batch, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The appeal in LAAS No.994 of 2011 was taken as lead appeal for disposal of the batch of the cases. To prevent confusion, the parties were referred to as claimants and land acquisition officer in this appeal. 2. The Conservator of Forests and Field Director, Srisailam, has addressed a letter requesting to acquire land admeasuring Ac.73.24 cents in Rollapadu village, for the purpose of Great Indian Bustard Project. Accordingly, the land acquisition department invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred as Act) had acquired an extent of Ac.58.01 cents reducing an extent of 3 Ac.18.83 cents, situated in Rollapadu village, Midthur Mandal. Accordingly, the acquisition department has issued Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in the District Gazette on 23.02.2001 and advance possession was taken on 03.02.1986 and the award was passed on 31.10.2003 vide Award No.3/2003 and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.8000/- per acre for the land under acquisition. 3. The respondents herein who are claimants in LAOP No.70 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Nandikotkur, have received the said amount on protest and requested to refer the award to the reference Court for fair fixation of the market value under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court has fixed the market value @ Rs.26,000/- per acre and directed the Land Acquisition Department to pay all the statutory benefits as envisaged or as postulated under the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the fixation of market value @ Rs.26,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred batch of appeals on two grounds. One such ground is that the reference Court has wrongly relied on the proceedings dated Nil 9.2005 Ex.A2 in RC No.70 of 2000 and Ex.A5 in 4 RC No.46/96, dated 16.06.1999 for fixation of the market value @ Rs.26,000/- per acre and the Court ought not to have awarded interest from the date of taking possession instead of date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and prayed to allow the appeals by setting aside the common order dated 28.08.2009 delivered in LAOP No.70 of 2007 and batch, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. 5. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants have examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of acquisition department/ Referring Officer, RW1 was examined i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer and marked Ex.B1 to B3. The reference Court has not relied on Ex.A1, A3, A4, A6 and A7 on the ground that the lands acquired under the aforesaid Exhibits, are cultivable lands, rainfed dry lands and no classification was noted in Ex.A6 document and the lands under the acquisition are classified as waste lands. In the said documents, the market value of the land was fixed ranging from Rs.32,000/- to Rs.52,000/- per acre. In simplification, the lands under the acquisition are not similar to the lands mentioned in the exhibits A1 to A7 other than Ex A2 and A5. The reference Court relying on Ex.A2 i.e. proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, 5 Kurnool in RC No.7/2000 and Ex.A5, i.e. proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool, vide award No.46/1999, dated 16.06.1999, has fixed the market value @ Rs.26,000/- per acre. 6. The Learned Government Pleader for land acquisition has argued the matter, reiterating the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Grounds, that the Court below erred in relying on the awards for fixation of the compensation. The Special Deputy Collector, Srisailam, passed Award No. 46 of 1999, dated 16.06.1999, vide Ex.A5, based on directions issued by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 1813 of 2002. PW3 in the LAOP, who deposed before the reference Court, stated that he is the assignee and that the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired (or resumed) land for the same project, i.e., the Great Indian Bustard Project, without payment of any compensation or ex-gratia. Therefore, PW-3 along with other assignees were constrained to file legal proceedings for a direction to the Land Acquisition Department to pay compensation for the resumption of land. 7. On the directive issued by the High Court in W.P. No. 29064 of 1998 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed an amount of 6 Rs. 3,000/- per acre towards compensation for the land acquired. Aggrieved by this, PW3 and others preferred W.P. No. 1813 of 2002 for payment of ex-gratia @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, and in pursuance of the orders in said Writ Petition, ex-gratia was paid @ Rs.26,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool, passed Award No. 46 of 1999, dated 16.06.1999, which is marked as Ex.A5. Relying on this award, the reference Court fixed the amount of Rs. 26,000/- per acre as compensation. In doing so, the reference Court referred to Ex.A.2 and recorded a finding that the lands covered under Ex.A.2 are classified as assessed waste lands vide proceedings ROC No.70/2000 dated Nil.9.2005 and were taken possession in 1989 and the possession of the lands under the present acquisition was taken in 1989 and they are not fit for cultivation. 8. There is no absolute legal bar to rely on the awards of Land Acquisition Officer for fixation of compensation when acceptable evidence is not available in the records where the acquisition took place. However, in the present case, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 26,000/- and the award Ex A-5 was passed pursuant to the directions of the erstwhile Court in W.P. No. 1813 of 2002, and 7 relating to the same village for the same purpose. Therefore, the said documents Ex A2 and A5 can be safely relied upon, as the reference Court did. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals is not tenable and is not persuasive enough to discard Exs. A2 and A5. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Leela Ghosh v. State of West Bengal1, held that it is only in case of possession taken invoking Section 17 of the said Act, the payment of interest shall start from the date of possession. In the present case, the acquisition department has invoked Section 17(4) of the Act and the possession was taken on 03.02.1986 and the same was reflected in paragraph 9 of the order of the reference Court. Therefore, the contention raised by the Learned Government Pleader in this regard is hereby rejected. 10. After carefully appreciating the material on record and examining the reference Court's order, this Court finds that the reference Court correctly relied Ex. A2 and A5 award to determine just compensation taking into consideration the relevant factors, @ Rs. 26,000/- per acre as against the claim made by the respondents/land owners @ Rs.1 lacs per acre. The 1 2004(9)SCC 337 8 award no. 46 of 1999 dt.16.06.1999 of the Special Deputy Collector (Ex.A5) is for the same project and for the same purpose. Wherein the market value was fixed at Rs.26,000/- per acre in accordance with directive issued in W.P. No.1813 of 2002. 11. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in these appeals shall stand dismissed. . __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 20.03.2025 Harin 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALAYA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 70 LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos. 994, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 157, 173, 174, 175, 306, 441, 599, 600, 601, 664, 671, 676, 677, 678, 679, 999 of 2011 Date: 20.03.2025 Harin