APHC010441062017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST 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: 392, 395, 415 and 419 of 2017 LAAS.No.392 of 2017: Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR-CUM-LAO, KURNOOL DIST, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. N DASTHAGIRI REDDY KURNOOL DIST, S/o Pulla Reddy, r/o Narasapuram Village Rudravaram 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) Aggrieved by a Common Order dated 06.09.2016 in L.A.O.P.Nos.610, 609, 602 and 603 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, the State/appellant preferred the present batch of appeals. 2. Heard Sri T.S.Rayulu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondents/claimants. 3. For the purpose of excavation of Major Channel Distributory in Block No.24 of Telugu Ganga Project, different extents of lands of the respondents in various survey numbers of Narasapuram Village were acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 25.02.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.32/2004-05, dated 19.03.2005 granting compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre for dry lands cultivated through borewell under Category-1 and Rs.40,000/- per acre for rain fed dry lands under Category-2. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court answered the reference by fixing compensation at Rs.92,000/- per acre, apart from granting statutory benefits. 4. The learned Government Pleader inter alia contends that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered all the relevant factors during the course of Award proceedings and fixed the market value Rs.55,000/- per acre for dry lands cultivated through borewell under Category-1 and Rs.40,000/- per acre for rain fed dry lands under Category-2, which is just and reasonable. He submits that the fixation of market value by the Reference Court is without any valid basis, excessive and not sustainable. He submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in fixing the compensation on the basis of Ex.A1, Sale Deed dated 16.06.2003 in respect of lands situated in another village and far away from the lands under the present acquisition and potentiality of the 3 same is not similar. He also contends that the nature of the lands in the same village varies from one place to the other. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader emphatically submits that the fixation of compensation by the Reference Court is on higher side, amounts to enhancement on enhancement and warrants interference by this Court. 5. On an appreciation of the contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this batch of appeals is as to whether the order of the Reference Court warrants interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 6. Before answering the point, it is to be noted that before the Reference Court, PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants and Ex.A1-Certified copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 16.06.2003 was marked, wherein an extent of 0.50 cents was sold for Rs.40,000/- which works to Rs.80,000/- per acre. Rudravaram Mandal Map issued by Special Deputy Collector (L.A), S.R.B.C., Nandyal was marked as Ex.A2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. Ex.B1, Copy of Award No.32/2004-05, dated 19.03.2005 was marked with consent. 7. PW2, the Mandal Agricultural Officer in his evidence stated that the villages viz., Muthalur, Chandalur, Mandalur, Narasapuram, Alamur, Chinna Kambaluru, Peddakambalur, Kondamayapalli, Velagalapalli and Yerragudidinne are within his jurisdiction and that they have similar crop pattern and productivity. He further deposed that the market value of the lands is also similar and the said villages are situated within a distance of 10 kms radius. Though, Ex.A1 is in respect of the lands situated in Chinna Kambaluru Village, nothing contra could be elicited in the cross examination of PWs.1 to 3 that Ex.A1 dated 16.06.2003 is not genuine, brought into existence for the purpose of boosting the claim artificially. Hence, the same can be safely relied for the purpose of fixing the market value. Further, no documentary evidence was adduced by the Referring Officer and the submission of the learned 4 Government Pleader with reference to the sale statistics/transactions unless exhibited before the Reference Court, cannot be appreciated. (See: Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another1). 8. The learned Reference Court by taking into consideration the evidence on record more particularly Ex.A1, fixed the market value as the lands in question and the lands under Ex.A1 transaction are situate in the adjoining Villages. In G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that instances of sale of similar lands situated in the same village or neighbouring villages can be taken for determination of the market value. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader is rejected. 9. In the present case, the lands are acquired for Telugu Ganga Project and there is a time gap of more than 1 year and 8 months between the Ex.A1 sale deed dated 16.06.2003 and the Section 4(1) Notification dated 25.02.2005, the Reference Court has taken into consideration 1½ years time gap. Further referring to Om Prakash vs. Union of India3, value appreciation @ 10% per annum was taken into account, though the same may be taken up to 12% per annum, in which event, the respondents/claimants would get more compensation. However, no cross objections/appeals have been filed. Fixing uniform rate in view of the nature of the land cannot be viewed as unjust or unreasonable. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court was based on the material on record, supported by cogent reasons, not on higher side and warrants no interference of this Court. Accordingly, this point is answered. 1 (1988) 3 SCC 751 2 (2005) 6 SCC 454 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 5 11. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date : 21.08.2025 BMS