APHC010365882012 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 NO: 255/2012 Between: 1. B.BALI REDDY DIED PER LRS 2TO 4, S/O PEDDA SUBBA REDDY AGRICULTURE R/O THAMMARAJUPALLE, PANYAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. BATTULA SUBBA REDDY, S/O LATE B.BALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-109A, THAMMARAJUPALLE PANYAM (V AND M) NANDYAL DISTRICT-518112. 3. BATTULA RAMI REDDY,, S/O LATE B. BALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-123, THAMMARAJUPALLE, PANYAM (V AND M) NANDYAL DISTRICT-518112. 4. BATTULA SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE B. BALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-123, THAMMARAJUPALLE, PANYAM (V AND M) NANDYAL DISTRICT-518112. APPELLANT NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 VIDE I.A.NO.3 OF 2025 IN L.A.A.S.NO.255 OF 2012. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUM LAO LA, SRBC, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 2 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. MADDA LAKSHMINARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR APPEALS NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 3 The Court made the following Judgment: Against the common order dated 20.09.2006 in L.A.O.P No.300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307 and 308 of 2000 on the file of Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent/claimant in the O.P No.307 of 2000. 3. Heard Mr. M Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S Bala Mohan Rao, learned Government Pleader for appeals. Perused the material on record. 4. For the purpose of borrow area for C.N.S. soils, the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, SRBC, Nandyal, acquired lands of the appellants and others of an extent of Ac.47.96 cents in various Survey numbers situated in Thammarajupalle village. 5. Section 4 (1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 8the Act9) was published in the A.P.Gazette on 22.02.1999 and a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published simultaneously. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands into two categories viz., 1) Irrigated dry lands by bore wells 2) dry lands. After conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.21/98-99 dated 29.03.1999. Though the appellant/claimant claimed compensation @ Rs.80,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer after taking sale statistics of 19 transactions, fixed the compensation of Category-1, Irrigated dry lands by bore wells @ NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 4 Rs.43,000/- per acre and Category-II, Dry lands @ Rs.33,000/- per acre. The appellants / claimants received the compensation under protest and invoked Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Before the Reference Court, it was pleaded that the claimants / appellants were raising crops like ground nut, jowar, chilies etc; and deriving annual income ranging from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.35,000/-, that Thammarajupalle is a fast developing village and abutting the National Highway road, the lands are very fertile and having high potentiality and prayed for enhancement of compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 7. In support of their claim, the appellants / claimants examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2 i.e., Copies of the Registered Sale Deeds dated 14.09.1994 and 27.01.1992 respectively. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. However, a copy of the Award dated 29.03.1999 was marked as Ex.A1 with consent. 8. The learned Reference Court, after considering the matter, enhanced the market value from Rs.43,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre in respect of the category-I, irrigated dry lands and from Rs.33,000 to Rs.45,000/- per acre in respect of the category-II, dry lands. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits that the order of the Reference Court to the extent of not enhancing the compensation as sought for is not sustainable. He submits that the subject matter land was acquired pursuant to Sec.4 (1) Notification dated 22.02.1999 and though NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 5 ample material is available i.e., Exs.B1 and B2 which can be taken as basis for determination of just and reasonable compensation, the same were not taken into consideration. He submits that though there may be a justification for discarding Ex.B1-Sale Deed on the premise that the same pertains to Panyam village, the learned Reference Court was not right in not taking into consideration Ex.B2 which is a sale transaction in respect of the land situated in the same village on the ground that it is in respect of small extent of land. With regard to the observations of the learned Reference Court that no documents are filed to show that the appellants / claimants are deriving income of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- from the crops raised by them, he submits that the appellants are poor farmers and they are not expected to file any documents with regard to the income they were deriving from the crops raised by them. 10. Drawing the attention of this Court to Para No.14 of the order under challenge, the learned counsel submits that in the light of the evidence adduced by the appellants / claimants which remained unshaken, the learned Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,87,496/- per acre though Rs.1,00,000/- was sought for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in 1) Horrmal (deceased) through his Lrs., and others v. State of Haryana & others1 and 2) Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (deceased) through His legal Heirs & 1 2024 INSC 797 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 6 Ors., v. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Another 2 and Bhimasha v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer3 etc. 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He contends that the learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence had rightly fixed the compensation, which is just and reasonable and no interference is called for by this Court. 12. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced on both sides, the point that arises for consideration, is whether Reference Court9s order which partly allowed the O.P., is correct and if not, whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation? 13. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no dispute about the date of acquisition of the subject matter lands pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 22.02.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands at Rs.43,000/- as against Rs.80,000/- per acre claimed by the land losers / appellants. However, before the Reference Court, feeling dissatisfied with the amount of Rs.43,000/- and Rs.33,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners / claimants sought enhancement of compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre only. In support of their claim, they adduced oral and documentary evidence. 2 2025 INSC 393 3 (2008) 10 SCC 797 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 7 14. On behalf of the Referring Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector did not let in any evidence. Even the Land Acquisition Officer did not enter the witness box. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the learned Reference Court that the sale statistics considered by the Land Acquisition Officer have no evidentiary value unless those documents are marked after reference before the Court is well founded, more particularly in the light of the decision of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 4 , wherein it was inter alia held that unless the sale transactions forming basis for fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer are exhibited, the same cannot be treated as evidence though a reference was made in the Award. Be that as it may. 15. It is trite law that it is for the claimants to prove their case for fixation of fair compensation in respect of the lands acquired from them. As noted earlier, the claimants / appellants examined R.W.1, who deposed that the acquired land is situated beside Nandyal-Kurnool High way road No.18, that Thammarajupalle is a fast developing village, having big crusher factories and two upper primary schools. He also deposed that the lands of Thammarajupalle are very fertile. The version of R.W.1 is supported by R.W.2, who is the vendee of Ex.B2-Sale Deed dated 27.01.1992. Nothing was elicited during cross examination of the said witnesses to disbelieve their version about the location and the potentiality of the subject matter lands, except a 4 (1988) 3 SCC 751 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 8 mere suggestion to R.W.1 that the land in question is far away from the highway, which is also denied. However, it may be noted that R.W.1 did not state anything about the distance between the lands under acquisition and the land which is subject matter of Sale Deed Ex.B2. On the other hand, in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that the subject matter lands are encompassed by hillocks, but the same may not be totally a negative factor and in view of the sale transaction Ex.B2, which is in respect of lands in the very same village, it can be taken as basis for determining the just compensation. 16. So far as Ex.B1 is concerned, it is in respect of the sale transaction of land situated in Panyam village and as such the same cannot be considered for the purpose of fixing the compensation of the subject matter lands. Therefore, the only document which may perhaps be taken into account is the Sale deed dated 27.01.1992 (Ex.B2), which is in respect of a small extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents of land situated in the very same village i.e., Thammarajupalle sold for Rs.5,000/- and same works out to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The subject matter lands were acquired on 22.02.1999 and there is a time gap of more than seven years between the sale transaction dated 27.01.1992 (Ex.B2) and Section 4 (1) Notification dated 22.02.1999. In the absence of any other evidence, much less, oral evidence to discredit the said sale transaction, this Court see no reason as to why the same shall not be taken into consideration, though it is in respect of a small extent of land. NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 9 17. In the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon9ble Supreme Court inter alia opined that sale transactions in respect of small extent of land may be taken into consideration for fixation of compensation, however, appropriate deductions which may vary in between 20 to 80 % towards development charges have to be effected. 18. As there is no other evidence except Ex.B2, this Court is inclined to take the same into consideration for fixing the just and reasonable compensation by taking time gap and value appreciation in terms of the decision of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Omprakash and Ors., v. Union of India5, wherein it inter alia, opined that while working out fair market value of the subject matter lands there in on the basis of Rs.16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963, the High Court keeping in view that in several judgments of the Apex Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e., 6% p.a from 1959 to 1965, 10% p.a. from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% p.a. from 1975 onwards had been considered to be reasonable, adopted escalation of market value @ 12% p.a. and upheld the same. Though, as per the said decision, the value appreciation may be taken upto 12 % per annum, keeping in view that the acquired land is situated in a village, it is deemed appropriate to take the same @ 10% p.a. As regards applicable deductions, the learned counsel for appellants submitted that deduction at the most @ 50% may be reasonable. But in the light of the admission of the R.W.1 in the cross examination that the lands in question are situated in hillocks and in the absence of any evidence with regard to distance 5 AIR 2004 SC 4135 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.255 of 2012 10 between Ex.B2 land and the land under acquisition, this Court is of the opinion that deductions @ 75% towards development charges would be well in the limits set out in Horrmal’s case referred to above. Thus, taking time gap of 7 years between Section 4 (1) Notification and the Ex.B2 Sale Deed, value appreciation @ 10% p.a., market value of the lands in question works out to Rs.3,40,000/- per acre and after effecting deductions towards developmental charges at 75%, the market value of the lands in question is arrived at Rs.85,000/- per acre. Point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation in respect of the subject matter appeal from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.85,000/- in respect of the category-1, Irrigated dry lands from the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. The appellants/claimants shall pay court fee on the enhanced compensation. The appellants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants / claimants are entitled to withdraw the amounts. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date:16.10.2025 Ksj