Contd… APHC010581442014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3495] 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: 264/2014 Between: The Special Deputy Collector [la] ...APPELLANT AND Katreddi Pakkir Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following Judgment: (per NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 in O.P No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals, Mr. T S Rayulu and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 3. An extent of Ac.11.19 cents of agricultural land situated in different survey numbers in Giddalaur village of Sanjamala mandal in Kurnool district 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.264 of 2014 2 was acquired, pursuant to a Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) dated 09.04.2002, for the purpose of Giddalur XV Block of Srisailam Right Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, based on an earlier Award No.54/2001-02 dated 30.03.2002, fixed the market value of the acquired lands i.e., @ Rs.36,000/- per acre for rain fed land and Rs.42,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands through bore well. 4. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the respondents/claimants while receiving compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, for compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for wet lands. 5. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondents/claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. However, a copy of the award No.11/2002-03 dated 07.06.2002 was marked as Ex.B1. The learned Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the market value from Rs.36,000/- per acre to Rs.85,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.42,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre for dry lands irrigated through bore wells. 6. Assailing the said enhancement, the learned Government Pleader inter alia contends that the order of the learned Reference Court is not sustainable in law in as much as there is no basis for enhancing the compensation amounts. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred in relying on Ex.A1 which is in respect of the lands far away from the lands under acquisition. He also contends that large extent of lands were acquired, but the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking into consideration the value of small extents of lands which are subject matter of Ex.A1. He also submits that the learned Reference Court erred in taking into consideration the escalation NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.264 of 2014 3 without any valid basis, much less independent evidence. Making the said submissions, learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Whereas, the learned counsel representing the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the order under challenge inter alia contending that the learned Reference Court had taken note that the lands in question are in proximity to the lands, which were acquired on the earlier occasion and rightly taken into consideration the orders passed in respect of the same vide Ex.A1 dated 01.03.1999. He submits that fixation of the market value by the learned Reference Court is just, reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention that in so far classification of the lands are concerned, no dispute is raised by the respondents/claimants. Further, in support of their case, seeking enhancement of the market value, they got examined as PWs.1 to 3 before the learned Reference Court. It was inter alia contended that they would derive a net annual income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre for the dry lands and Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for wet lands and the potential value of the lands was not appreciated by the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from the sale transaction which took place on 27.07.1999 (Ex.A6), they also placed reliance on Exs.A1 to A5. 9. As seen from Ex.A2, it is an order dated 18.11.2006 passed in LAAS.No.1677 of 2003 and batch in respect of the lands acquired on the earlier occasion under Award No.58/98-99 dated 01.03.1999. The lands under the said acquisition were situated in Reddipalli village of Sanjamala mandal. The Reference Court has fixed the market rate @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land and the same has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in the appeal. As per the evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants, the said NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.264 of 2014 4 villages Reddipalli, H/o. Alavakonda and the village in respect of the subject lands are more proximate to one another, having same features of potentiality, texture, fertility and productivity. Section 4(1) Notification in respect of the said acquisition was issued on 07.07.1993. 10. As seen from the order, the LAO vide award No.35/2001-02 dated 21.11.2001 (Ex.A4) acquired land in the same village and vide (Ex.A3) order dated 23.07.2008 in O.P.No.407/2002 the Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.85,000/- and Rs.95,000/- for dry lands and wet lands respectively. The Notification in respect of the lands under present acquisition was issued in 2002. 11. It may be appropriate to state that the subject matter lands under acquisition and the lands which are the subject matter of Ex.A2 are acquired for the same project. The time lag between the earlier notification and the present notification is about ten years and for the purpose of arriving at compensation, the Reference Court while relying on the judgment of a Division Bench in Valluri Veerabhadra Rao and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer–cum–Special Deputy Collector1 and Ranjith Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2 etc,. determined the compensation by taking time lag increase @ 10% per annum. It accordingly arrived at the market value @ Rs.85,000/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.90,000/- per acre for dry lands irrigated through bore wells relying on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The fixation of the market value as arrived at by the learned Reference Court, on the basis of the said decisions, cannot be faulted, as it is almost on par with the rate fixed under Ex.A3 referred to above, that too in the absence of any appeal by the respondents/claimants. 1 1998 (3) ALD DB Page 129- 2 AIR 1993 SC 227 NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.264 of 2014 5 12. Though, the learned Government Pleader made submissions to the effect that the fixation of the market value is without valid basis, considering the material on record, which is in respect of the lands acquired on the earlier occasion situate in the same and adjacent village, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. 13. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Reference Court, as the fixation of the market value is just, valid, reasonable and not excessive. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________________ JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 30.01.2025 SNI NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.264 of 2014 6 446 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKHARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.264 of 2014 Date: 30.01.2025 U SNI