1 APHC010551002012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 464; 465; 466; 474 & 486 of 2012 LAAS No.464 of 2021 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, ...APPELLANT AND Chakali Lakshmanna ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J) The present batch of Appeals arise out of a common order dated 04.01.2012 in LAOP No.11 of 2007 and batch, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The State aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired lands filed these appeals. 2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in LAOPs. 3) For the purpose of assigning house sites to weaker sections of Isvi village, proposals for acquisition of land in Sy.Nos.203/2 and 227 of the said village, admeasuring an extent of Ac.3-57 cents were submitted by the MRO Adoni. Pursuant to the said proposals and in consonance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, a Draft Notification was issued in 1996. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry passed Award No.17/HS/1996, dated 01.02.1997. The LAO fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre. The respondent- claimants, whose lands were acquired, received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. 4) Before the Reference Court the respondents examined the claimant in LAOP No.11 of 2007 as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 i.e., Certified copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 01.12.1995. On behalf of the State, the 3 Referring Officer was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of the Award-Ex.B1 was marked. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the respondents-claimants contended before the Reference Court that the fixation of the market value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre is very low; that the land in question is suitable for house sties and situated towards south connecting to Isvi village, surrounded by veterinary hospital, temple, Isvi railway station and many industries. Further that the lands are also nearer to Adoni Municipality. Relying on Ex.A1, wherein an extent of Ac.0-03 cents was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.5,300/-, which works out to Rs.1,76,600/- per acre, the respondents-claimants sought compensation in respect of the subject matter lands at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Learned Reference Court after considering the matter, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, on the premise that the same is reasonable. 5) Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals, inter alia, contends that the common order under challenge is erroneous, contrary to law and not sustainable. In elaboration, he submits that the learned Reference Court erred in relying on Ex.A1 sale deed, which is in respect of the small extent of land and the said transaction cannot be a comparable sale as a large extent of land was acquired. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred in not making deductions towards developmental charges while fixing the market value and as such, the order warrants interference of this Court. He also contends that even otherwise also enhancement of compensation 4 from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/- is unjust and highly excessive. Making the said submissions, he urges for allowing the appeals by setting aside the order under challenge. 6) This Court has considered the submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention here that an extent of Ac.0-75 cents of the respondent-claimant in LAAS No.464 of 2012; an extent of Ac.0-75 cents of the respondent-claimant in LAAS No.465 of 2012; an extent of Ac.0-75 cents of the respondent-claimant in LAAS No.486 of 2012, an extent of Ac.0-75 cents of the respondent-claimant in LAAS No.474 of 2012 situated in Sy.No.203/2 of Isvi village and an extent of Ac.0-57 cents of the respondent-claimant in LAAS No.466 of 2012 272 situated in Sy.No.227 of Isvi village were acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer Awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/- per acre. Seeking enhancement of the same at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, the said respondents before the Reference Court adduced oral and documentary evidence. It was contended on behalf of the State that the land under acquisition was far away from the village and fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre is based on sale statistics and the Basic Value Register. The Reference Court formulating a point as to whether the market value of the land was more at the time of acquisition and whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the compensation amount or not; answered the same in favour of the respondents-claimants. 5 7) On an appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State and perusing the material on record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is “Whether the fixation of market value by the Reference Court, is excessive and warrants interference by this court?”. 8) As noted earlier, on behalf of the respondents P.W.1 who is one of the claimants was examined and as per his evidence, the subject matter lands are in the vicinity of veterinary hospital, temple, railway station and several industries. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he testified that the distance between Isvi village and Adoni Town is 1 k.m., and the distance between the main road and the said village was ½ k.m. Nothing was elicited in the cross- examination to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. R.W.1 in his cross- examination had admitted that there were factories situated upto the village border, but stated that he is not aware whether there was any veterinary hospital, temple etc., and that whether Isvi village was included in the limits of Adoni Municipality or not. However, he categorically admitted that the subject matter land would fetch more value, if it was converted into house plots. As per Ex.A1, which is a sale transaction dated 01.12.1995, an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in Sy.No.203 of the same village was sold for Rs.5,300/-. Nothing was elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.1 to the effect that the sale transaction vide Ex.A1 is not genuine or that the same is not reflecting the correct market value. No contra evidence was adduced on behalf of the State through R.W.1. Though the said transaction is in respect of the small extent 6 of land, as it is the only piece of evidence and the genuineness of which was not contradicted, this Court feels it appropriate to take the said transaction as the basis for fixation of market value. 9) In Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others1the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the sale exemplars in respect of the small extents of land can be taken into consideration for fixation of market value depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It, however, observed that appropriate deductions which may even go upto 80% can be made. In the light of the said decision, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, with reference to Ex.A1, merits no appreciation. As noted earlier, vide Ex.A1 dated 01.12.1995 i.e., about one year prior to the acquisition of the land in question, an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in Sy.No.203 of Isvi village was sold for Rs.5,300/- at the rate of Rs.36/- per sq.yard. If the said rate is taken into consideration the market value of the land per acre works out to Rs.1,76,600/-. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, as the acquisition of the land in question is for house plots, deductions towards the development / amenities have to be made. In the present case, though the order of the Reference Court does not reflect the percentage of deductions, while recording the findings that the Isvi village is not a remote village and it is very nearer to Adoni Town, the market value was fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Be that as it may. 1 MANU/SC/1134/2024 7 10) In view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court supra to the effect that Ex.A1 can be taken as basis for fixation of market value i.e., Rs.1,76,600/- per acre, appropriate deductions have to be made. However, the Reference Court while observing that increase in market value in rural areas may be at the rate of about 5% to 7.5% per annum, however, has not fixed the market value by taking time gap between the sale transaction vide Ex.A1 and the draft notification and also not imposed cuts towards development charges. No reasons were assigned in this regard. Be that as it may. 11) Even 40% deductions are effected, the market value of the land would come to Rs.1,05,960/-. Further, taking into account the time gap of about one year between Ex.A1 sale transaction dated 01.09.1995 and the Notification in respect of the subject matter land under acquisition, respondents / claimants are also entitled for value appreciation @12% per annum as per the decision of the Om Prakash (Dead) by LRS., v Union of India2. If the same is taken into account for the purpose of arriving at the just compensation, the market value as fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre cannot be viewed as unreasonable or excessive. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader in this regard are rejected. This Court see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The point is accordingly answered against the appellant / State. 2 (2004) 10 SCC 627 8 12) In the result, the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 13) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J Date:20.03.2025 Ssv 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 464; 465; 466; 474 & 486 of 2012 Date:20.03.2025 ssv