Contd… APHC010743122015 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: 104/2015 Between: The Special Deputy Collector ...APPELLANT AND B Ramachandra Reddy 24 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 10.09.2009 in O.P No.52 of 2003 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.17.77 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.104 of 2015 2 22.06.2000, for the purpose of Srisailam Right Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer, at the time of conducting award enquiry, classified the lands into five categories i.e., I) dry lands irrigated by rain fed water, II) dry lands irrigated by tank water, III) dry lands irrigated by own bore wells, IV) dry lands irrigated by others bore wells and V) dry lands kept waste but fit for cultivation. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired lands i.e., @ Rs.36,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-I, @ Rs.46,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-II, @ Rs.44,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-III, @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-IV and @ Rs.32,000/- per acre for lands under Category-V. 4. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, and to grant compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, basing on the categorization of lands. 5. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondents/claimant Nos. 2 and 9 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and PWs.3 and 4 are independent witnesses. They got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. However, a copy of the award No.26/2001-02 dated 31.07.2001 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 in respect of Category-I lands, from Rs.46,000/- per acre to Rs.99,000/- per acre in respect of Category-II lands, from Rs.44,000/- per acre to Rs.95,000/- per acre in respect of Category-III lands, from Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre in respect of Category-IV and from Rs.32,000/- per acre to Rs.75,000/- per acre in respect of Category-V. 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 NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.104 of 2015 3 amounts. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred in relying on Exs.A2 and A4 which are 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 Exs.A2 and A4. 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 by setting aside the order under 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 account the orders passed in respect of the same vide Exs.A2 and A4. 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. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Reference Court warrants interference on the promise that the fixation of market values is not just and excessive. 9. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention that in so far as 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 4 before the learned Reference Court. It was inter alia contended that they would derive a net annual income of Rs.15,000/- per acre from the dry lands and Rs.30,000/- per acre from irrigated dry lands and the NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.104 of 2015 4 potential value of the lands was not appreciated by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. As seen from Ex.A2, it is award No.35/2001-02 dated 31.08.2001, and lands covered under the said award and the lands covered under the present award are situated in the same village i.e., Giddalur village of Sanjamala mandal in Kurnool District. So far as the lands which were acquired vide Ex.A4 dated 30.03.1999, they are situate in Reddipalli village. As per the evidence of PW.3, the lands in Reddipalli are hardly at a distance of 1 KM from the lands under the present acquisition, possess the same features and values of the lands are also same. On a Reference sought by him, vide Ex.A6, the market value was fixed at Rs.50,000/- per Acre. The said rate was confirmed by the High Court vide Ex.A5 orders dated 18.11.2006. 11. 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 and A4 are acquired for the same project and the earlier notification was dated 07.07.1993. Thus, the time lag between the earlier notification and the present notification is almost seven years. So far as Ex.A4 is concerned i.e., the award No.58/1998-99 dated 30.03.1999, the lands were situated in Reddipalli village 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–Special Deputy Collector 2 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, Category-II lands @ Rs.99,000/-, Category-III lands @ Rs.95,000/-, Category-IV lands @ Rs.90,000/- and 1 (2004) 10 SCC 627 2 1998 (3) ALD DB Page 129- NJS,J & TMR,J L.A.A.S No.104 of 2015 5 Category-V lands @ Rs.75,000/- 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 and assigned cogent reasons for giving margin of Rs.2,000/-. Keeping in view the difference in the category of lands. 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, more particularly, Exs.A4 and A5, which is in respect of lands acquired on the earlier occasion situate in the adjacent village, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. 13. 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. Point is answered accordingly. 14. In the result, 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.104 of 2015 6 447 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKHARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.104 of 2015 Date: 30.01.2025 U SNI