APHC010877832017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 590, 591, 593, 596, 597, 607, 608 and 616 of 2017 LAAS No.590 of 2017: Between: 1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NANDYAL, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT NANDYAL ...APPELLANT AND 1. A CHINNA VEERABHADRUDU, S/o. Veeranna Seetharamapuram village Mahanandi mandal, Kurnool District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. 2. Aggrieved by a Common Order dated 30.03.2017 in L.A.O.P.Nos.52, 44, 48, 50, 43, 49, 45 and 51 of 2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the State preferred the present batch of appeals. 3. For the purpose of excavation of Minor Distributory of Telugu Ganga Canal Block No.13/4L, the Special Deputy Collector (land acquisition) issued a Notification dated 06.08.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land of an extent of Ac.4.28 cents in various survey numbers of Gopavaram village, Mahanandi Mandal belonging to the respondents/claimants. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer by conducting Award enquiry, fixed the market value @ Rs.35,000/- per acre for lands under Category-I for Dry lands and Rs.45,000/- per acre for lands under Category-II for Dry lands having irrigation facility under bore wells/wells in addition to Telugu Ganga Project water. The respondents/while receiving the compensation under protest sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. Before the Reference Court, they claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and in support of their case, examined R.W.s.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1-Certified Copy of Judgment in LAOP.No.815 of 2009, dated 22.04.2015. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. Copy of the Award No.69/2005-06, dated 20.03.2006 in respect of the lands in question was marked as Ex.A1 with consent. 5. The Reference Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation in respect of Category No.1 lands from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.1,14,000/- per acre and Category No.2 lands from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. 6. Learned Government Pleader, vehemently contends that the enhancement of the compensation by the Reference Court is without any valid basis. He submits that the respondents/claimants have not adduced any 3 cogent evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of the compensation. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and on an appreciation of the same, the point that arises for consideration is : Whether the Common Order under challenge warrants interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that hundreds of acres of land situated in different villages of Nandyal District were acquired for the purpose of the Telugu Ganga Project. Most of these villages are contiguous and nature of the land in most of these villages are similar. Be that as it may. 9. As noted earlier, seeking enhancement of the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands, the respondents/claimants got examined R.W.1 and R.W.2. They relied on Ex.B1 dated 22.04.2015 wherein the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, fixed the market value @ Rs.1,14,000/- per acre for Category No.1 and Rs.1,35,000/- per acre for Category-II of the lands situated in the very same Gopavaram village. The award in respect of the said lands was passed on 21.08.2006 and the nature of the lands is similar to the subject lands. Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of R.W.1, who deposed that there is no difference in crop pattern in the acquired lands and potentiality for house sites. Further, that the lands under acquisition are black cotton soil lands are crops like chillies, jowar, etc., are being raised. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer, but as it is claim for enhancement, the burden is on the respondents to prove their case, by adducing evidence. The evidence brought on record supports their case and no contra evidence was adduced. Therefore, Ex.B1- Certified Copy of Judgment in LAOP.No.815/2009, dated 22.04.2015 is in respect of same village, taking into consideration the nature of the land, potentiality, the market value of the subject matter lands can be determined. 10. Ex.B1 is Certified Copy of Judgment in LAOP.No.815/2009, dated 22.04.2015. The said judgment was challenged before this Court in 4 LAAS.No.151/2014. The said appeal was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.10.2024. In these circumstances, reliance on Ex.B1 by the Reference Court cannot be found fault with. 11. The learned Reference Court on a proper appreciation of the matter and keeping in view of the difference between the dry lands and the lands having irrigation source under Category 1 and Category 2 respectively as also by assigning cogent reasons was justified in enhancing the compensation. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the fixation of compensation in respect of the subject matter lands is just and reasonable and that there are no good grounds warranting interference by this Court in the order under challenge. Accordingly, the point is answered. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 28.08.2025 BMS