APHC010487082017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 3/2017 Between: 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LAND, ACQUISITION OFFICER, ADONI ...APPELLANT AND 1. B ISMAIL, S/o Late B. Mahaboob Sab,l D.No. 1/617, Bharper , Adoni. ...RESPONDENT to allow the above appeal and set aside the order and decree dt.28.02.2013 in OP.No.23 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(LAASMP 911 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1109 days in filing the apeal and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(LAASMP 2 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings including execution in EP No.16/2016 in OP No.23/2009 dated 28.02.2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K SITA RAM 2 The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.3 of 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment/decree in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 2009, dated 28.02.2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. The undisputed facts herein are that, for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the Adoni Municipality, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published by the District Collector, Kurnool for acquisition of the land admeasuring Ac.20.79 cents in Sy.No.216 A of Mandigiri Village of Adoni Mandal. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an enquiry fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimants received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming market value at Rs.35,00,000/- per acre. 3. The reference Court after considering the matter basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value at Rs.2,80,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4 4. During the course of hearing of this appeal today, learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the appellant would submit that in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2016 has confirmed the order of the reference Court by judgment dated 26.06.2025. Learned counsel would submit that the lands acquired in the present appeal are similarly situated to the lands acquired in L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2016, which were acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections in Adoni Municipality, and are situated in the same town. 5. Considering the reasons stated in the judgment dated 26.06.2025 in L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2016 and the submission of the learned Government Pleader, in our considered view, the findings of the Coordinate Division Bench in the judgment stated (supra) have to be followed in the present case also, to maintain the judicial discipline. The relevant portion of the judgment stated (supra) extracted herein under:- “10. As seen from the material on record, Exs.A1 and A2 were referred to at S.Nos.36 and 9 of the sale statistics. However, it would appear that the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the said transactions on the premise that they were bit sales and were in developed area, far away from the land under acquisition. But Ex.A2 was in respect of Ac.1.17 cents and not a bit sale, wherein the land was sold for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, about three years five months prior to the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. If the said transaction is taken into consideration, the respondent would be entitled for more compensation. However, no appeal or cross objections was filed and the respondent was satisfied with the compensation as enhanced up to Rs.2,75,000/-. In fact, as per the material on record, R.W.1 in his cross examination, admitted that the lands in question were situated near industrial area and adjacent the land situated in Siruguppa-Adoni road. He also admitted that a bye-pass road 5 passes near the acquired land, a summer storage water tank was situated at a distance one furlong from the acquired lands and houses were constructed in the acquired lands. He categorically admitted that one year prior to the Ex.B1-Award in respect of the subject matter lands, a consent Award vide Ex.A3 dated 16.04.2008 was passed and the subject matter lands are nearer to the lands acquired under the consent award. It is not in dispute that as per the Consent Award, the rate of the land was fixed at Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, inclusive of all benefits. There is a time gap of about 10 months between the Consent Award and the Award passed in respect of the subject matter lands. The learned Reference Court as observed earlier, instead of taking Ex.A2 Sale transaction and the admissions made by the R.W.1, took Ex.A3-Consent Award into consideration. It opined that when a similar land was acquired with the consent of the land owners about one year prior and the market value was fixed at Rs.2,75,000/- per acre, the claimant is entitled for 10% increase in market value per annum and at the same time also opined that 10% is to be deducted towards developmental charges and accordingly, fixed the market value in respect of the lands under acquisition at Rs.2,75,000/- per acre. Such a fixation in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be viewed as unjust or lacking in cogent reasons. Though the learned Government Pleader for Appeals sought to impress upon this Court that deductions of atleast 50% towards development charges have to be made, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the same. The lands are situated in a village and developmental charges as adopted by the Reference Court are sufficient. 11. On examining the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reasons, much less valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court. The point is answered accordingly.” 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the Coordinate Division Bench in the judgment stated (supra), we find no merit to entertain this appeal. 7. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suit is dismissed. 6 8. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 27.11.2025 SCS 7 273 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.3 of 2017 Dt.27.11.2025 SCS