APHC010198492017 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: 349, 352, 358 and 448 of 2017 LAAS No.349 of 2017: Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), KURNOOL DIST, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. G ANNAIAH KURNOOL DIST, S/o. Subbaiah, aged 55 years, Agriculturist, Nandyal 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 23.04.2015 in L.A.O.P.Nos.573, 575, 569, 574 of 2009 on the file of Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the State/appellant preferred the present batch of appeals. 2. Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent in L.A.A.S.No.352 of 2017, who appeared through online. 3. For the purpose of excavation of 5L minor distributory of Telugu Ganga Project, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) issued a Notification dated 04.07.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land of an extent of Ac.1.79 cents in various survey numbers of Nandipalli village, Mahanandi Mandal belonging to the respondents/claimants. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer by conducting Award enquiry, fixed the market value @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. 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 the Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. Copy of the Award No.24/2005, dated 12.09.2005 in respect of the lands in question was marked as Ex.A1 with consent. Award proceedings was marked as Ex.A2. 5. The Reference Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- 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 cogent evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of the compensation. He argues that Ex.B1-Sale transaction dated 09.02.2004 is in 3 respect of the lands situated in a different village i.e., Gajulapalle, whereas the acquired lands are situated in Nandipalli Village, Mahanandi Mandal. Further, that a small extent of Ac.0.68 cents was sold and the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking the said transaction into consideration for the purpose of fixing the market value. Making the said submissions, he urges for allowing the appeals. 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 Kurnool 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 is 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 09.02.2004 which is in respect of lands situated in the neighbouring Gajulapalli Village. R.W.1 in his evidence testified that the nature, potentiality and market value of the lands under acquisition are similar to that of Ex.B1 land. Nothing was elicited in the cross examination contrary to the said version. On the other hand, R.W.2, who is an attestor of Ex.B1 in his cross examination, supported the case of the claimants. Further, that the lands under acquisition are fertile and claimants are raising agricultural crops and commercial crops. No contra 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 nothing contra could be elicited in the cross examination of the claimant’s witnesses that Ex.B1- Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004 is not genuine, brought into existence for the 4 purpose of boosting the claim artificially. Therefore, though Ex.B1-Sale transaction is in respect of another village, taking into consideration the nature of the land, potentiality, the market value of the subject matter lands can be determined and the contention of the learned Government Pleader in this regard merits no appreciation. Fixation of compensation on the basis of the value of the land in the adjoining villages having similar nature and potentiality was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors.,1. 10. Insofar as the other contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that Ex.B1 is in respect of a small extent, the same deserves no acceptance. More than a half acre was sold vide Ex.B1-Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004 which was about one year five months prior to the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification dated 04.07.2005 in respect of the lands in question. It is not the case of the appellant-State that the sale transaction was in respect of some house sites or that the same is not genuine. Under the said circumstances, reliance on Ex.B1 by the Reference Court cannot be found fault with. That apart, 12% value appreciation as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Om Prakash (died) by LRs2, can be taken into consideration. However, the learned Reference Court under a wrong impression that the time gap is only few days and not applied value appreciation at all. If the same is applied, the claimants would have got more compensation. However, no cross objections/appeals were filed. 11. The learned Reference Court on a proper appreciation of the matter, except above said aspect, by assigning cogent reasons was justified in enhancing the compensation. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that there are no good grounds warranting interference by this Court in the order under challenge. Accordingly, the point is answered. 1 (2005) 6 SCC 454 2 AIR 2004 SCC 4135 5 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeals fail and the same are therefore 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