Contd… APHC010684562011 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: 430/2011 Between: 1. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), S.R.B.C., Nandyal. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Bejjam Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, Aged 38 years, Agriculturist, Giddalur Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District and others …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: (per NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2008 in L.A.O.P No.407 of 2002 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.17.69 cents of agricultural land situate in Giddalaur village of Sanjamala mandal in Kurnool district was acquired, pursuant to a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.430 of 2011 2 Contd… 28.06.2000, for the purpose of Srisailam Right Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer, at the time of conducting award enquiry, classified the lands into three categories i.e., I) dry lands, II) irrigated dry lands with bore wells existing in the same lands and III) irrigated dry lands with bore well waters drawn from other lands. The Land Acquisition Officer based on an Award No.27/2001 dated 12.08.2001, fixed the market value of the acquired lands i.e., @ Rs.36,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-I, @ Rs.44,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-II and @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for lands under Category-III. 4. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, seeking compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. 5. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondents/claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, however copy of the award No.35/2001-02 dated 21.11.2001 was marked as Ex.B1 and the Commissioner’s warrant, Commissioner’s report and the Commissioner’s plan were marked as Exs.C1 to C3. 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 in respect of Category-I lands, from Rs.44,000/- per acre to Rs.95,000/- per acre in respect of Category-II lands and from Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre in respect of Category-III lands. 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 Exs.A4 and A5 which are in respect of the lands far away from the lands under acquisition. He also contends that large extent of lands were acquired, NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.430 of 2011 3 Contd… but the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking into consideration the value of small extents of lands which are subject matter of Exs.A4 and A5. He also submits that the learned Reference Court erred in taking into consideration the escalation 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 into consideration 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 Exs.A4 and A5. 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. In support of their case, seeking enhancement of the market value, they got examined as PWs.1 to 7 before the learned Reference Court. It was inter alia contended that they would derive a net annual income of Rs.12,000/- per acre from their lands by raising dry crops and the potential value of the lands was not appreciated by the Land Acquisition Officer. Apart from the sale transaction which took place on 01.10.2002 (Ex.A1) reliance was also placed on Exs.A2 to A7. 9. As seen from Ex.A1, it is a post notification transaction, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. So far as, Ex.A2 is concerned, it is a common order dated 06.07.2007 passed in O.P No.59 of 2002 and batch in respect of the lands acquired on the earlier occasion under Award No.4/93-94 NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.430 of 2011 4 Contd… dated 23.07.1993. The lands under the said acquisition were situate in Dattapuram village and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market rate for Category-I dry lands @ Rs.25,000/- per acre and Category-II irrigated dry lands @ Rs.30,000/- and the learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of Category-I lands and Rs.45,000/- per acre in respect of Category-II lands. As per the evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants, the said villages Dattapuram, Alavakonda, Reddipalli and other villages are more proximate to one another, having same features in potentiality, texture, fertility and productivity. 10. Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of the plan relating to Kollakunta erstwhile taluk wherein all these villages are shown to be situate in a cluster. It may be appropriate to mention here 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 seven years. Coming to the other documents, Ex.A5 is a common order dated 19.12.2003 passed in O.P No.250 of 2000 wherein the market value of the lands was fixed at Rs.50,000/- per acre and on appeal, the erstwhile High Court vide Ex.A4 Common Judgment dated 18.11.2006 in A.S No.1677 of 2003, had confirmed the enhancement made by the learned Reference Court @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. The lands which are subject matter of Exs.A4 and A5 situate in Reddipalli village were acquired, pursuant to a Section 4(1) Notification dated 07.07.1993 and award in respect of the same is Ex.A3 dated 30.03.1999. The time gap between the lands which were acquired under award Ex.A3 and the present acquisition is seven years and for the purpose of arriving at compensation, 10% increase in the market rate may be taken into consideration in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. Union of India1. Whereas, the learned Reference Court relied on the judgment of a Division Bench in Valluri Veerabhadra Rao and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer – cum – 1 (2004) 10 SCC 627 NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.430 of 2011 5 Special Deputy Collector2 and determined the compensation by taking time lag increase @ 10% per annum. It accordingly arrived at the market value of Category-I lands @ Rs.85,000/- per acre relying on Ex.A4. The fixation of the market value as arrived at by the learned Reference Court, on the basis of the said decision, which is in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court found is valid. So far as, the margin of Rs.5,000/- taken by the learned Reference Court, in respect of the other categories of lands, the same is based on the nature of the lands and the same cannot be fault with. 11. 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, more particularly, Exs.A4 and A5, which is in respect of lands acquired on the earlier occasion situate in the adjacent villages, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety, we 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. 13. 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 Ksj 2 1998 (3) ALD DB Page 129-