APHC010581922014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 156, 183 of 2014 and 374 of 2015 LAAS.No.156 of 2014: Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DANTHA CHINNA VENKATA SWAMY, S/o Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, R/o Thimmapuram (V) Mahanandi (M) ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following: 2 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.156 of 2014 & batch COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Aggrieved by a Common Order, dated 09.07.2012 in L.A.O.P.Nos.921, 917 and 919 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the State/appellant preferred the present batch of appeals. 2. Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan Rao, learned Government Pleader for Appeals, and Smt. Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants in L.A.A.S.Nos.183 of 2014 and 374 of 2015. 3. For the purpose of excavation of 4-L Minor Distributory of B.Kodur Major from Kms.1.664 to 3.155 in Block No.9 of Telugu Ganga Project, a Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) dated 12.05.1999 for acquisition of an extent of Ac.5.11 cents in various survey numbers of Bukkapuram Village of Mahanandi Mandal belonging to the respondents/claimants was issued. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30.08.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into account about 100 sale transactions, fixed the market value of the subject matter lands @ Rs.18,500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said fixation and while receiving the compensation under protest, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. 4. Before the Reference Court, the respondents/claimants examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Ex.B1, i.e., Certified Copy of the Judgment in A.S.No.3184 of 1992 and batch, dated 19.11.1992 and Ex.B2, i.e., Certified Copy of Mahanandi Mandal Revenue Map. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced; however, a copy of the Award No.25/2001-02, dated 28.02.2002, was marked as Ex.A1 with consent. 5. The learned Reference Court, vide its common order, enhanced the compensation from Rs.18,500/- to Rs.1,72,000/- per acre. 3 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.156 of 2014 & batch 6. Assailing the impugned order, learned Government Pleader for Appeals inter alia contends that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered about 100 sale transactions at the time of Award enquiry and fixed reasonable compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.18,500/- per acre. He contends that the learned Reference Court went wrong in relying on Ex.B1, dated 19.11.1992 and committed a grave error in enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,72,000/- per acre. He also submits that the learned Reference Court was not right in enhancing the compensation though the subject matter lands are far away from the lands acquired on the earlier occasion and the potentiality of the same is not similar. It is his contention that even the nature of the lands in the same village varies from one place to other. So far as the escalation of market value/value appreciation @ 12% p.a. as adopted by the learned Reference Court, he contends that the lands are situated in a remote village and in such circumstances, the value appreciation @ 12% p.a. is unreasonable. He also submits that the learned Reference Court ought not to have adopted 12% p.a. towards value appreciation treating as if it is a thumb rule. Making the said submissions, he strenuously contends that the fixation of compensation by the Reference Court is on higher side, amounts to enhancement on enhancement and warrants interference by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the orders of the Reference Court by contending that all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration, and the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands was rightly fixed. She submits that the evidence on record would go to show that Ex.B1 lands and the subject matter lands are similar in nature and having high potentiality. She also submits that the learned Reference Court had rightly relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Charan Dass vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority1 and, by assigning cogent reasons, determined the 1 2010 (1) ALT 13 (SC) 4 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.156 of 2014 & batch compensation in respect of the subject matter lands. She therefore submits that there are no good grounds, much less merits, in the appeals and seeks dismissal of the same. 8. This Court had considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 9. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the order of the learned Reference Court enhancing the compensation warrants interference on the ground that the same is not just or reasonable?” 10. At the outset, as noted earlier, on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined, and no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. R.W.1 (claimant in O.P.No.919 of 2009), in his evidence had categorically deposed that in the acquired lands, he used to raise banana, turmeric and also paddy with the help of bore irrigation and that for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project, lands in Gopavaram, Nandipalle, Seetharamapuram, Bukkapuram were acquired, and all the said villages are connected with Telugu Ganga Canal and the said lands are similar in nature, fertility, cropping pattern and market value. He categorically deposed that the distance between the lands in Thimmapuram Village, which were the subject matter of Appeal No.3184 of 1992 and batch (Ex.B1), and the lands under the present acquisition is 2 kms. As per Ex.B1, it is also not in dispute that the lands in Thimmapuram Village were acquired pursuant to a Section 4(1) Notification dated 14.08.1995 for Telugu Ganga Project, and the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had fixed the market value @ Rs.65,000/- per acre vide orders dated 19.11.1992 in A.S.No.3184 of 1992 and batch. R.W.2, while supporting the version of R.W.1, admitted in cross-examination that 5 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.156 of 2014 & batch there is no irrigation channel in Bukkapuram, but deposed that there were bore wells, wells and tank irrigation. 11. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the subject matter lands and the lands covered under Ex.A1 are situated in different villages, and that the market value differs from village to village. However, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader in the absence of any material/document exhibited before the learned Reference Court, merits no appreciation. (See:Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another2). 12. As per the evidence brought on record by the respondents/ claimants, the distance between Thimmapuram Village in which the lands were acquired on the earlier occasion and the Bukkapuram Village, where the subject matter lands are situated is 2 kms. In Charan Dass (supra), on which the learned Reference Court placed reliance, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court opined that the Awards passed in respect of the lands in similar village or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid, more particularly as there are no comparable sales in respect of subject matter village. In G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel3, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court inter alia held that instances of sale of similar lands situated in the same village or neighbouring villages can be taken for determination of the market value. 13. In so far as the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking the value appreciation of the lands in question @ 12% p.a., the same merits no acceptance. 14. As noted earlier, the acquisition of lands in Thimmapuram village was in the year 1985, whereas the Section 4(1) Notification in respect of the 2 (1988) 3 SCC 751 3 (2005) 6 SCC 454 6 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.156 of 2014 & batch lands under present acquisition was issued in the year 1999. There is a time gap of 13 years 8 months and 28 days as noted by the learned Reference Court and in the light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Union of India4, the value appreciation @ 12% per annum cannot be treated as unreasonable. In the said case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the High Court of Delhi. While working out fair market value of the subject matter lands in question 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 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 was considered to be reasonable, adopted escalation of market value @ 12% p.a and the same was upheld. In the present case, undisputedly there is increased potentiality of the land by virtue of Telugu Ganga Project. This Court see no illegality in the order of the Reference Court in following the said decision, in respect of the lands acquired in the year 1999. At any rate, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the escalation @ 12% p.a. adopted by the Reference Court in respect of the subject matter lands amounts to “enhancement on enhancement” cannot be appreciated in the light of the fact that there is always trend of increase in the land prices, more particularly, in respect of the lands of this nature. 15. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court was based on the material on record, supported by cogent reasons, is not on higher side and warrants no interference by this Court. Point for consideration is therefore answered against the appellant. 16. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 (2004) 10 SCC 627 7 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.156 of 2014 & batch 17. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date : 09.10.2025 BMS