APHC010017852012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Social Welfare Officer, Kurnool District, Nandikotkur. K.Govindamma Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Mr.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY 1 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No: 275 of 2012 The Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool District, ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3495] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT 2 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 The Court made the following Judgment: (per NJS, J) Aggrieved by the Order dated 14.09.2011 in L.A.O.P.No.5118 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkuru, enhancing the compensation of Rs.6,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.83,000/- per acre, the State preferred the present Appeal. 2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it may be appropriate to mention that as seen from the cause title in the L.A.O.P., the respondent / claimant was aged about 90 years and by the time it was disposed of vide Order impugned in the present appeal, she completed 111 years. The learned counsel for the respondent / claimant is no more. It is doubtful as to whether the respondent is still alive, at the age of 124 years. Be that as it may. 3. Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and perused the material on record. 4. For the purpose of providing house sites to backward class people, the land of the respondent / claimant of an extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Survey No.94/1B of Brahmanakotkuru Village was acquired and the compensation was determined vide Award No.1 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986. The respondent / claimant received the amount under protest and sought Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Initially, the orders passed in the connected Land Acquisition matters, were nullified by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.17010 of 2007. The records pertaining to the 3 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 above O.Ps., were seized by the District Judge in connection with the enquiry initiated against the Senior Civil Judge, whose orders were nullified. Later on, they were taken up for consideration along with other O.Ps., i.e., O.P.Nos.5119 and 5092 of 1991 etc. 5. Before the Reference Court, the respondent / claimant was examined as R.W.4. R.W.1 is the claimant in O.P.No.5119 of 2019, R.Ws.2 and 3 are purchasers of land vide Sale Deeds dated 18.08.1983 and 16.04.1985 (Exs.X1 and X2). R.W.5 is an independent witness. On behalf of the Referring Officer, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., the Award dated 17.03.1986, Sale Deed dated 12.04.1984 and Combined Sketch respectively were marked. The Commissioner’s report and Commissioner’s plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. 6. The learned Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence determined the market value at Rs.83,000/- per acre. 7. The learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contended that the determination of market value by the Reference Court is without valid basis, highly excessive and warrants interference by this Court. He submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in fixing the market value on the basis of a document, which is not even exhibited by the respondent / claimant. He also contends that escalation of 10% p.a., in the absence of any evidence to establish that the prices of land in and around the acquired lands are 4 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 increasing is not tenable. Making the said submissions, he urges for allowing the appeal. 8. On an appreciation of the submissions made with reference to the material on record, the point that falls for adjudication is Whether the determination of compensation / market value by the Reference Court warrants interference by this Court. 9. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that the land of the respondent / claimant was acquired along with the lands of the others and an Award (Ex.A1) was passed awarding a compensation of Rs.7,774/- to the acquired lands of respondent / claimant of an extent of Ac.0.88 cents. Before the Reference Court, she claimed the market value of the land @ Rs.3,000/- per cent with statutory benefits, whereas R.W.1-Claimant in O.P.No.5119 of 1991 claimed Rs.2,000/- per cent, which works out to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. 10. In her deposition, the respondent / claimant (R.W.4) categorically asserted that the acquired land is very near to Veterinary Dispensary, School and Hospital and the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the same. R.W.5, an independent witness supported the case of the respondent / claimant testifying that the acquired land is very near to Veterinary Dispensary, School and Hospital, that the acquired lands are on the road side of Kurnool-Guntur Road. Whereas, P.W.1 deposed that the then Land Acquisition Officer considered the sale Item No.44 in Ex.A1-Award and fixed the market value of the acquired land. The said sale transaction was marked 5 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 as Ex.A2. He deposed that the market value based on Ex.A2-Sale Deed is proper. 11. As seen from the Ex.A1-Award dated 17.03.1986, the Land Acquisition Officer considered 76 sale transactions, discarded all the sale transactions, except sale transaction No.44 inter alia on the premise that some transactions are bit sales and the same are not representing the true market value. However, it is to be noted that a total extent of Ac.1.40 cents which is situated in Survey No.94/1B was acquired and the respondent’s land of an extent of Ac.0.88 cents is situated in the same survey number. It is discernible from the Award that the sale transactions Item Nos.43, 47 and 73 which are in respect of the same survey number are ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per acre. When the sale statistics in respect of the lands in the same survey number in which the acquired lands are situated, the Land Acquisition Officer is not justified in not taking the said transactions into account while determining the market value. 12. It is settled Law that when several sale transactions / comparable sales are available, the highest sale exemplar to the benefit of the land loser has to be considered for fixing of the market value. In the present case, the highest sale transaction reflecting the market value is Rs.75,000/- per acre and therefore, the same has to be taken as a yardstick for arriving at the just compensation. 6 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 13. The learned Reference Court considering all the relevant aspects, had rightly opined that the market value of Ex.A2 sale transaction is very low and that the sale transactions i.e., Item Nos.43, 47 and 73 of the Ex.A1-Award which relates to the same survey number of the acquired land has to be taken into consideration. It, in fact discarded Exs.X1 and X2-Registered Sale Deeds dated 18.08.1983 and 16.04.1985 which are sale transactions in Survey No.53 and 106/2 reflecting the market value @ Rs.2,000/- per cent and Rs.500/- per cent respectively on the premise that they are far away from the acquired lands. Further, taking the time lag of one year, the learned Reference Court applied 10% escalation on the highest sale transaction reflecting the market value at Rs.75,000/- per acre and fixed the compensation at Rs.82,500/- (rounded off to Rs.83,000/-). 14. Though the learned Government Pleader contended that the determination of market value is without any basis, not tenable and the value appreciation of 10% p.a., is not justified in the absence of any evidence, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. The order of the Reference Court is based on material on record and contains cogent reasons. Insofar as the contention with regard to escalation, it may be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v Union of India1, wherein it, inter alia, held that while working out fair market value of the subject matter lands there in 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 1 (2004) 10 SCC 627 7 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 escalation at different and varying rates i.e., 6% p.a from 1959 to 1965, 10% p.a. from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% p.a. from 1975 onwards had been considered to be reasonable, adopted escalation of market value @ 12% p.a. and upheld the same. The point is accordingly answered against the appellant. 15. For the aforegoing reasons, this Court see no good grounds to interfere with the order under challenge and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J BLV Dt.30.01.2025 8 NJS, J & TMR, J LAAS_275_2012 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO L.A.A.S.No: 275 of 2012 Date:30.01.2025 BLV