1 APHC010530672015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAAS Nos.40, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 86, 87, 90, 96, 97, 98, 105, 106, 112, 112, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 133, 134, 136, 148, 309, 332 of 2015 & 26 of 2016 AND I.A.Nos.2 of 2017 (X-OBJECTIONS) in L.A.A.S.Nos.56, 68, 71, 77, 87 and 148 of 2015 LAAS No.40 of 2015: Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L.A.,, G.N.S.S., UNIT-1, NANDYAL, KURNOOL (DIST) ...APPELLANT AND 1. KATREDDY CHINNA NARAYANA REDDY, S/o Chinna Yerukala Reddy R/o B.Singavaram (V) Kolimigundhiliiir Kurnool (Dist) ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. HARIJA AKKINENI 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J) The State aggrieved by the Common Order dated 04.01.2014, in OP Nos.1138, 1155, 1160, 1161, 1150, 1167, 1133, 1140, 1134, 1118, 1151, 1153, 1129, 1121, 1142, 1122, 1130, 1154, 1120, 1162, 1143, 1135, 1152, 1124, 1158, 1136, 1147, 1125, 1157, 1146, 1145, 1159, 1141, 1139, 1166, 1137, 1119, 1163, 1131, 1164, 1144 and 1132 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, filed the present batch of Appeals. Some of the respondents in LAAS Nos.56; 68; 71, 77; 87 and 148 of 2015 have filed cross-objections aggrieved by the said order dated 04.01.2014, in the above said batch of Appeals. 2) Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and Mr.Upendra, learned counsel for the Cross-objectors / claimants. Perused the material on record. 3) For the purpose of excavation of Galeuru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (for short “the GNSS”) Flood flow Canal from KM 4.850 to 7.990 KM, a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.02.2006. The subject land situated in Belum Singavaram village is part of the said acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide Ex.A2 Award No.3 of 2006-07 dated 25.07.2006, fixed the market value by classifying the lands into two categories (i) Rain-fed land and (ii) Dry land, irrigated with bore water and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. Dissatisfied with the same and seeking market value at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, the land owners / claimants invoked Section 18 of the Act. 4) In support of their claim they got examined RWs 1 to 6 and got market Exs.B1 to B6. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced Exs.A1 to 3 A4 were marked with consent. Exs.C1 to C7 i.e., Commissioner’s plan, opinion of the Royalty Inspector etc., were also marked. The learned Reference Court taking into consideration the potentiality of the subject matter land opined that dividing the land into category wise does not arise and fixed the market value uniformly at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, by relying on Exs.B2 and B3 i.e., Order in LAAS No.1748 of 2005 of the High Court of A.P., dated 26.03.2007 as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.6540 to 6563 of 2008 (Ex.B3). The said orders were in respect of the land situated in the very same village in question, which were acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 18.05.1992. Taking time gap of 13 years between the earlier Notification dated 18.05.1992 and the present Notification in respect of the subject matter lands and applying 10% increase in the Market Value, the learned Reference Court arrived at an amount of Rs.3,40,400/- per acre and after deducting development charges @ 26.5%, fixed the Market Value @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. 5) While the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State assails that the said fixation is not sustainable, the learned counsel for the respondent/cross- objectors by relying on Exs.B5 and B6 contends that the claimants are entitled to more compensation and seeks to allow the cross-objections. 6) Broadly it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that value appreciation of 10% as adopted by the Reference Court for fixing the Market Value of the subject matter lands is not tenable. Further, that the Reference Court went wrong in deducting development charges of the acquired lands only @ 26.5% and it should have been at least 50%. He submits that the order of the Reference Court is, therefore, not just and tenable, as such liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4 7) Learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors contends that in the light of the material available on record i.e., Exs.B5 and B6 (Registered Sale Deeds dated 04.06.2005 & 17.06.2005), which are in respect of the lands situated in the very same village, the learned Reference Court ought to have taken the said transactions into consideration, more particularly, as they were executed eight (08) months prior to the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification dated 15.02.2006. In so far as the deduction towards development charges @ 26.5%, as adopted by the learned Reference Court, the learned counsel would contend that the same is on higher side, and the Market Value of the subject matter lands may be fixed on the basis of Exs.B5 and B6 by applying deductions @ 10% towards development charges. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the cross-objections by dismissing the appeals filed by the State. 8) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the fixation of the Market Value under the order under challenge is on higher side? Or (2) Whether the market value is liable to be enhanced by allowing the cross- objections? 9) At this juncture, it may be pertinent to mention here that the claimants in some of the OPs i.e., OP Nos.56; 87; 68; 71, 77; 148 of 2015, filed the cross-objections and other claimants did not choose to file the same. Be that as it may. 10) In so far as the contentions of the learned Government Pleader are concerned, as noted earlier, the learned Reference Court solely relied on Exs.B2 and B3, which are in respect of the lands situate in Belum Singavaram village, acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) Notification dated 18.05.1992. The learned Division Bench 5 of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., fixed the Market Value in respect of the said lands at Rs.1,48,000/- per acre and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. While taking the said Market Value into account, the Reference Court applied 10% value appreciation and taking the time gap of 13 years arrived at Rs.3,40,400/- per acre; and after deducting the developmental charges @ 26.5%, fixed the Market Value @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. It is relevant to observe here that the learned Reference Court though discussed about Exs.B5 and B6, did not take the same into consideration. Exs.B5 and B6 are registered sale transactions dated 04.06.2005 & 17.06.2005, which are in respect of the land situated in the very same village and the sales took place about eight months prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 15.02.2006. No reasons are stated by the learned Reference Court for not giving weight to the said sale transactions. The learned Reference Court simply relied on the orders i.e., Ex.B2 and B3 and the relevant portion of the Reference Court in this regard is reproduced hereunder. “20. Even though there is sufficient material before the court in fixation of the market value of the lands of the claimants, I followed the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court passed under Exs.B2 and B3 in respect of the lands situated in Belum Singavaram village area, but I am inclined to fix the escalation charges for the time gap for 13 years from 18.05.1992.” 11) However, the learned Reference Court, ought to have appreciated that Registered sale transactions, the genuineness of which is not questioned can be taken into consideration for determining the Market Value of the acquired land. In the present case, though the sale transactions vide Exs.B5 and B6 are in respect of the small extents of land, the same could have been taken into consideration by applying appropriate deductions towards development charges as laid by the 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Valliyammal and Another v Special Tahsildar (LA) and Another1. 12) It is trite law that in land acquisition matters, the Court is required to fix just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, in the light of the material available on record, i.e., Exs.B5 and B6, appropriate compensation in respect of the lands of the cross-objectors may be arrived at. There is a gap of just 10 days between Ex.B5 sale transaction dated 04.06.2005 and Ex.B6 Sale transaction dated 17.06.2005, wherein an extent of Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.104 and Ac.0-03 cents in Sy.No.103 of Belum Singavaram village were sold for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. The average sale consideration in respect of these transactions come to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. There is a time gap of about eight months between Ex.B5 and B6 sale transactions and Section 4 (1) Notification. In Om Prakash (Dead) by LRS., v Union of India2. the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India opined that value appreciation upto 12% p.a., may be adopted while determining the Market Value. If the 10% value appreciation and time gap of 8 months is taken into consideration the value of the lands of the respondents/cross-objectors works out to Rs.4,26,660/-. Further considering the fact that the lands were situated in village, deduction of development charges @ 30%, would be reasonable. Thus, after deducting the said charges, the value of the lands of cross-objectors is fixed at Rs.2,98,660/- per acre i.e., Rs.4,26,660 – Rs.1,28,000 (rounded off). 13) In the light of the findings and conclusions recorded supra, the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader for appeals are rejected and the Point 1 (2011) 8 SCC 91 2 (2004) 10 SCC 627 7 No.1 is answered against the State. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. 14) In so far as the cross-objections are concerned the I.A.Nos.2 of 2017 (X- OBJECTIONS) in L.A.A.S.Nos.56, 68, 71, 77, 87 and 148 of 2015 are allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.2,98,660/- per acre. The cross-objectors are entitled to all the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4(1) Notification. The State shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Reference Court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, the Point No.2 is answered and the cross-objections are partly allowed. No costs. 15) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO, J DATE:03.07.2025 SSV 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO LAAS Nos.40, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 86, 87, 90, 96, 97, 98, 105, 106, 112, 112, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 133, 134, 136, 148, 309, 332 of 2015 & 26 of 2016 AND I.A.Nos.2 of 2017 (X-OBJECTIONS) in L.A.A.S.Nos.56, 68, 71, 77, 87 and 148 of 2015 Date:03.07.2025 Ssv