APHC010428072016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL LAAS No.36 of 2016: BETWEEN: 1. The Special Deputy Collector Telugu Ganga Project 1. G Chennamma W Velagalapalle village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District The Appeal is filed to allow the above appeal and set aside the order and decree dt.30.10.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos. 36, 39, 42, 66 & 70 of 2016 The Special Deputy Collector - cum - Land Acquisition Officer Telugu Ganga Project, Nandyal AND W/o. Kondanna aged about 67 years, r/o. Velagalapalle village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District ... The Appeal is filed to allow the above appeal and set aside the order and decree dt.30.10.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3526] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Nos. 36, 39, 42, 66 & 70 of 2016 Land Acquisition Officer, ...Appellant Kondanna aged about 67 years, r/o. Velagalapalle village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District ...Respondent The Appeal is filed to allow the above appeal and set aside the order and decree dt.30.10.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, 2 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Mr. T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Also heard Smt. Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants, who appeared through online. 2. Aggrieved by a Common Order dated 30.10.2015 in L.A.O.P.Nos. 117, 149, 118, 148 and 119 of 2012, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, the State preferred the present batch of appeals. The respondents herein are the claimants in the said O.Ps. 3. For the purpose of excavation of 19/4L Major Distributory in Block No.19 of Telugu Ganga Project, Nandyal, the Special Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notification dated 24.06.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land in the village limits of Velagalapalli Village, Rudravaram Mandal belonging to the respondents / claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer by conducting Award enquiry, classified the lands into two categories i.e., (i) rainfed dry lands, (ii) irrigated dry lands and fixed the market value @ Rs.38,000/- and Rs.48,000/- per acre respectively. The respondents / claimants while receiving the compensation under protest sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 3 4. Before the Reference Court, the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and in support of their case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 (some of the claimants) and got marked Ex.A1-Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 16.06.2003 and Ex.A2. Rudravaram Mandal Map. On behalf of the Referring Officer, no oral evidence was adduced. Attested Copy of the Award was marked as Ex.B1. 5. The Reference Court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation in respect of subject lands to Rs.1,30,000/- per acre. 6. Mr. T.S.Rayalu, the 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.A1-Sale transaction dated 16.06.2003 is in respect of the lands situated in altogether a different village i.e., Chinna Kambaluru village, and even according to the respondents / claimants, the distance between the said village and the subject matter lands under acquisition situated in Velagalapalli is about 10 Kms. Therefore, the said sale transaction ought not to have been taken into consideration and the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by taking the sale statistics at the time of Award enquiry ought to have been approved by the Reference Court. Making 4 the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for allowing the appeals. 7. On the other hand, Smt.Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants appearing through online made submissions to sustain the order of the Reference Court. She contends that the Reference Court considered both oral and documentary evidence in the proper perspective and in the light of the settled legal position referred to in the order under challenge, no interference is called for by this Court in the present appeals. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and the point that arises for adjudication is: Whether the fixation of market value by the Reference Court vide Common Order under challenge warrants interference by this Court as the same is excessive? 9. 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. 10. As noted earlier, seeking enhancement of the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands, the claimants got examined P.W.1 and others. They relied on Ex.A1 dated 16.06.2003 which is in respect 5 of land situated at Chinna Kambaluru Village, wherein an extent of Ac.0.50 cents was sold for Rs.40,000/- which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. In the claim statement before the Reference Court, the respondents / claimants stated that the fixation of market value is too low, that the Land Acquisition Officer was not correct in making the classification of lands and that it is proper to fix the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. P.W.1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination supporting the contents of the claim statement. Most importantly, the Mandal Agricultural Officer who was examined on behalf of the claimants and whose jurisdiction extends to Chandalur, Mandalur, Narasapuram, Alamur, Chinna Kambaluru, Peddakambalur, Kondamayapalli villages as also Velagalapalli Village where the subject lands and Ex.A1 lands are situated, categorically deposed that the said lands are having similar crop pattern, productivity and the market value. Nothing contra was elicited in the cross examination of Claimant’s witnesses. It is also brought on record that the said villages are situated within a distance of 10 Kms., radius. No contra evidence was adduced either oral or documentary on behalf of the Referring Officer, in the absence of which, the compensation has to be fixed on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants. 11. At this juncture, the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader with regard to the sales statistics relied on by the Land 6 Acquisition Officer may also be referred to. However, it is settled law 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 (See: Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer1). Therefore, mere marking of Ex.B1-Award in the absence of oral and documentary evidence supporting the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer would not enure to the benefit of the State. Be that as it may. 12. In the land acquisition matters, the Law is well settled that the Court is required to fix just and reasonable compensation. 13. In the present case, to substantiate their claim for enhancement, the respondents / claimants placed reliance on Ex.A1-Registered Sale Deed dated 16.06.2003. The sale transaction is in respect of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents for Rs.40,000/- which took place more than 3 years prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 24.06.2006 in respect of the subject matter lands. In the absence of any contra material on record adduced by the Referring Officer, the Court has no option except to take the said Sale Deed into consideration, by taking the time gap of 3 years. 1 1988 (3) SCC 751 7 14. In Omprakash and Ors., v. Union of India2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that 12% value appreciation per annum, in the attending facts and circumstances can be taken into consideration. Therefore, by taking the time gap of 3 years and the value appreciation @ 12% p.a., the market value of the subject matter lands on the basis of Ex.A1 would come to Rs.1,08,800/- per acre. However, the Learned Reference Court fixed it @ Rs.1,30,000/- per acre. Whereas, in respect of the lands acquired under the same notification in the same village on the basis of the very same document, it fixed the value @ Rs.1,04,000/- per acre and the same is confirmed by this Court vide orders dated 31.07.2025 in LAAS No.157 of 2016 and Batch. Though, the subject matter lands are categorized into rain-fed lands and irrigated dry lands, going by the evidence on record, more particularly of the Agricultural Officer and the potentiality of the acquired lands which are suitable for both commercial and food crops by virtue of Telugu Ganga Project / Distributory canals, fixation of compensation uniformly @ Rs.1,04,000/- per acre, in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable and the market value fixed by the Reference Court @ Rs.1,30,000/- is not tenable. Accordingly, the point is answered. 2 AIR 2004 SC 4135 8 15. Having considered the matter in its entirety, for the afore mentioned reasons, the market value fixed by the Learned Reference Court is reduced to Rs.1,04,000/- per acre. 16. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 31.07.2025 Harin 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 254 L.A.A.S. Nos. 36, 39, 42, 66 & 70 of 2016 Date: 31.07.2025 Harin