APHC010624672013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: 1. Sella Muralidhara Rao Sanjamala Mandal, 1. Special Deputy Colletor Dist. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K RathangaPani Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP for Appeals The Court made the following Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the respondent 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the 09.4.2013 in L.A.O.P. No.47 of 20 Civil Judge, Allagadda. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.535 of 2013 Sella Muralidhara Rao, S/o Pullaiah, Persusomula Village , Kurnool Dist. ...Appellant AND Special Deputy Colletor, L.A., G.N.S.S.Unit-I, Nandyal, ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: RathangaPani Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the Government Pleader representing the respondent/claimant The present appeal has been preferred against the Order 09.4.2013 in L.A.O.P. No.47 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior [3495] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Persusomula Village, Appellant I, Nandyal, Kurnool Respondent Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the /claimant. Order dated on the file of the Court of Senior 2 LAAS_353_2013 3. For the purpose of excavation of Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS) Flood Flow Canal, the land to an extent of Ac.1.40 cents in Survey No.680/1B and Ac.0.12 cents in Survey No.685/1B of Perusomula Village limits of the appellant was acquired vide Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20.2.2006. The draft declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 31.3.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted enquiry, classified the lands into three categories viz., Category 1–Dry lands un-cultivated, Category 2–Dry lands cultivated and Category 3–Irrigated dry lands or wetlands cultivated through irrigation facilities, and passed Award No.4 of 2006–07, dated 28.7.2006 determining the market value for Category–2 @ Rs.45,000/- and Category–3 @ Rs.65,000/- per acre. As seen from the Award, the lands of the appellant/claimant fall in Category–2. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. 4. Before the Reference Court, the appellant/claimant examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer, however Award No.4 of 2006– 07 was marked as Ex.B.1. 5. The learned Reference Court after considering the matter, was inclined to confirm the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.45,000/- per acre, inter alia opining that the purpose of which the subject matter land was acquired was different from the lands acquired vide Award No.74 of 2001–02 and further the subject matter lands are situated in different Villages. 3 LAAS_353_2013 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant while placing reliance on the decision of this Court dated 03.1.2025 in L.A.A.S. Nos.226 of 2013 and batch, inter alia contended that the order of the Reference Court is not sustainable and the reasons assigned by it confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer are not tenable. He submits that in respect of the dry lands situated in Perusomula, which were acquired for the purpose of excavation of GNSS Flood Flow Canal, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation @ Rs.45,000/- per acre and on reference vide Ex.A.5 dated 22.2.2012 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 2008 and batch, the Reference Court enhanced the same from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,13,000/- per acre. He submits that the subject matter lands are situated in Perusomula Village Limits and the learned Reference Court instead of determining the market value @ Rs.1,13,000/- per acre went wrong in confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the purpose for which the subject matter lands acquired is different. He also submits that even assuming that the purpose of acquisition of land is different, it is not in dispute that the subject matter lands are dry lands fall in Category–2 and in view of the same, the claimant is entitled for market value @ Rs.1,13,000/- per acre though an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed before the Reference Court. He submits that in fact the subject matter lands fetch at least Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, as they are having the mining potentiality of lime stone and kadapa slabs. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. It is his contention that as the appellant/claimant failed to establish the claim for enhancement of market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by placing cogent 4 LAAS_353_2013 material, the learned Reference Court confirmed the same. He also submits that the learned Reference Court assigned cogent reasons in this regard and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement as sought to be contended and the order under challenge warrants no interference. 8. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced, the only point that arises for adjudication is: “Whether the compensation as fixed by the Reference Court requires to be enhanced and thereby warrants any interference?” Point: 9. At the outset, it may be relevant to point out that the lands of the appellant/claimant to an extent of Acs.1.52 cents were acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 20.2.2006. As seen from the Award No.4 of 2006–07, a total extent of Acs.149.03 cents situated in Perusomula Village was acquired for excavation of GNSS Flood Flow Canal from KM 16.500 to KM 19.765 covered under Package No.48. It is not in dispute that the subject matter lands also form part of the said acquisition and covered by the same Award. Dissatisfied with the market value as determined vide Award No.4 of 2006–07, dated 28.7.2006 (Ex.B.1), some of the land- losers filed L.A.O.P. No.1 of 2008 & batch and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,13,000/- per acre in respect of Category–2 lands, in which category the subject matter lands also form part of. This Bench while examining the appeals filed by the State in L.A.A.S. No.226 of 2013 and batch as also the Cross- Objections of the claimants passed a detailed order dismissing the 5 LAAS_353_2013 appeals as well as Cross-Objections. Similar contentions raised by the claimants therein with reference to potentiality of the land for mining of lime stone and kadapa slabs were rejected. Be that as it may. 10. In so far as the order under challenge confirming the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is concerned, we are of the opinion that the reasoning of the learned Reference Court is not tenable. When the acquisition of the land is for the purpose of excavation of GNSS Flood Flow Canal, the observation that it is for a different purpose is unsustainable. Further, when there is no dispute with regard to categorization of the land, the learned Reference Court ought to have appreciated the matter with reference to the same and awarded just and reasonable compensation. Though the order in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 2008 and batch dated 29.2.2012 was exhibited vide Ex.A.5, wherein the compensation was enhanced from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,13,000/- per acre in respect of the lands under the same Award, it was not taken into consideration by the Reference Court, inter alia on the premise that the Government had preferred the appeal against the orders passed in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 2008 and batch. As mentioned earlier, the orders in the said batch of O.Ps were challenged by way of appeals in L.A.A.S. No.226 of 2013 and batch and the market value enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,13,000/- per acre was confirmed, vide common judgment dated 03.1.2025. 11. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material on record, as the subject matter lands were acquired pursuant to the same Notification and form part of Award No.4/2006-07, the compensation/ market value determined by the Reference Court in respect of dry lands @ Rs.1,13,000/-per acre, in our 6 LAAS_353_2013 considered opinion, would be just and proper. Point is thus answered in favour of the appellant/claimant. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,13,000/- per acre. The appellant/claimant would be entitled to all the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4(1) Notification. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J February 13, 2025 vasu