APHC010471352017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 536, 543, 547, 552 and 569 of 2017 L.A.A.S.No.536 of 2017: Between: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PEDDINENI ADI LAXMAMMA, W/o. P.Venkateswrlu, R/o. Brahnanthapuram Village, Atmakuru Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.536 of 2017 & batch COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) A batch of about 29 Land Acquisition Original Petitions (L.A.O.Ps) were disposed of by a Common Order, dated 10.02.2014, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. Out of the said O.Ps, the present appeals arise out of L.A.O.P.Nos.110, 104, 138, 145 and 23 of 2012. 2. Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan Rao, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents/claimants. 3. For the purpose of lifting 2 TMC of water from Velgodu Balancing Reservoir under the Lift Irrigation Scheme of Siddapuram Tank, an extent of Ac.20.20 cents situated in Atmakur village, Kurnool district, was sought to be acquired. In this regard, a Notification under Section 4(1) of A.P. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as to <the Act=), and a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued simultaneously on 19.07.2010, for acquisition of the subject matter lands belonging to the respondents/claimants situated in different survey numbers of Atmakur village. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, fixed the market value @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. The respondents/claimants, while receiving the compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming market value @ Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. 4. Before the learned Reference Court, to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined. A copy of the Award No.1/2011-12, dated 30.07.2011, was marked as Ex.B1, and the combined sketch of the village was marked as Ex.B2. 5. The learned Reference Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,93,600/- per 3 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.536 of 2017 & batch acre, on the basis of Ex.A15 i.e., the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2008 and batch on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 6. Learned Government Pleader submits that L.A.A.S.Nos.535, 553 and 565 of 2017 were filed against the Common Order dated 10.02.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.79 of 2012 and batch, and that the appeals arose out of L.A.O.P.Nos.24 of 2013, 140 of 2012 and 135 of 2012. He further submits that L.A.A.S.No.535 of 2017 was dismissed as abated on 10.04.2018, while L.A.A.S.Nos.553 and 565 of 2017 were rejected vide order dated 23.03.2018 and against the remaining L.A.O.Ps, no appeals have been preferred. 7. Learned Government Pleader made submissions inter alia to the effect that the order under appeal is not sustainable. He submits that the respondents/claimants failed to substantiate their claim for enhancement by placing cogent material. Further, the learned Reference Court went wrong in enhancing the compensation exorbitantly from Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.1,93,600/- per acre. He submits that the learned Reference Court grossly erred in relying on Ex.A15 which is in respect of lands situated in altogether a different village i.e., Bhanakacherla. He also submits that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the sale statistics in respect of several transactions that occurred three years prior to the date of Section 4(1) Notification, and that the market value determined is just and reasonable. He submits that the learned Reference Court, instead of appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer that the distance between the lands under acquisition and the lands which are subject matter of Ex.A15 is about 10 kilometres, erred in opining that both the lands are similar in nature, potentiality, cropping pattern and market value. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader seeks to set aside the Common Order, as the same is without any valid basis, highly excessive and unsustainable. 4 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.536 of 2017 & batch 8. On an appreciation of the contentions raised, the point that arises for consideration is: <Whether the Common Order of the learned Reference Court warrants interference by this Court on the ground that the compensation/market value fixed is without valid basis and excessive?= 9. At the outset, it may be noted that against the common order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, only in respect of some of the O.Ps, appeals have been preferred. The reasons for non-filing of appeals in respect of remaining O.Ps are not forthcoming. In fact, the present batch of appeals is liable to be dismissed on the principle of res judicata. Be that as it may. 10. As noted earlier, in support of their claim, the respondents/ claimants examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A15. P.W.1 is the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.79 of 2012. P.W.2 is the purchaser of land situated in Bhanakacherla village, and the registered sale deed, dated 17.11.2009, was marked as Ex.A1. The attestor of other sale transactions/sale deeds of Exs.A2 to A14 was examined as P.W.3. The owner of the lands which are subject matter of Ex.A15 was examined as P.W.4. As per the evidence of P.W.1, all the claimants were raising paddy, maize, sunflower, groundnut, chillies and cotton etc., and getting annual income of Rs.80,000/- per acre. So far as the P.W.2 is concerned, she deposed that she purchased land vide Ex.A1, dated 17.11.2009, for an amount of Rs.3,26,250/- per acre, and that the lands in question is similar in nature, potentiality, cropping pattern, etc. P.W.4, who is the resident of Bhanakacherla village, deposed that his land was acquired for widening of SRBC canal in the year 2007, and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.84,000/- per acre. He further deposed that the said compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,93,600/- per acre vide common order in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2008 and batch on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur (Ex.A15). He also deposed that Atmakur village, where 5 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.536 of 2017 & batch the subject matter lands are situated, and the villages of Bhanakacherla, Banumukkala and Nallakalva are adjoining villages within a radius of 3 kilometres, and that the lands are similar in nature, potentiality, cropping pattern and market value. 11. A perusal of the material on record including oral and documentary evidence would go to show that the respondents/claimants discharged the burden of proving their case for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that the fixation of compensation/market value by the learned Reference Court is without any valid basis, merits no appreciation. 12. As noted earlier, the subject matter lands were acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 19.07.2010. In the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants/respondents, P.W.3 stated that he had purchased lands vide Exs.A2 to A14 for the purpose of construction of Sagar Power Project in 1995, for a consideration of Rs.1,23,000/- per acre, and that the distance between the subject matter lands and the lands purchased by him is about 2 kilometres and that they are similar in nature, cropping pattern, etc. The time gap between the lands purchased by him and the subject matter lands under acquisition is about 15 years. In so far as the lands which are subject matter of Ex.A15, they are situated in Bhanakacherla village and as per the evidence of P.W.4, the distance between the lands under acquisition and Ex.A15 lands is about 10 kilometres. The time gap between the earlier notification in respect of lands situated in Bhanakacherla village and the present acquisition is about 3 years. Normally, there will be increasing trend in the values of land. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash v. Union of India1, held that annual escalation in land value can be reckoned up to 12% per annum. If the same is applied and Ex.A15 is taken as the basis for fixing the market value, it would be more. However, the learned Reference Court, having found 1 (2004) 10 SCC 627 6 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S.No.536 of 2017 & batch that no contra evidence was adduced by the Referring Officer, relied on Ex.A15 and enhanced the market value from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,93,600/- per acre, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is valid and cannot be treated as unreasonable or excessive. 13. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reason to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned Reference Court and accordingly, the present batch of appeals is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date : 16.10.2025 BMS