APHC010287342017 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: 334, 338, 379, 399, 427, 434 and 444 of 2017 LAAS No.334 of 2017: Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DIST, CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SRI P GURU SANKAR KURNOOL DIST, S/o. Nadipi Gurrappa, R/o. Mahadevpuram Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI 2 The Court made the following Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Aggrieved by a Common Order dated 12.07.2016 in L.A.O.P.Nos.281, 234, 283, 233, 232, 282, 215 of 2012 on the file of 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 and Smt. Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared through online. 3. For the purpose of excavation of 1-R Minor Distributory in Block No.16 of Telugu Ganga Project, different extents of lands of the respondents in various survey numbers of Mahadevapuram Village were acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 04.10.2005 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.62/2006, dated 20.03.2006 granting compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.45,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands. 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.1,15,000/- per acre, apart from awarding 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.35,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.45,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands, 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 09.02.2004 in respect of lands situate in another village and far away from the lands under the present acquisition and potentiality of the 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 3 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 the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the orders of the Reference Court by contending that the learned Reference Court had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and rightly fixed the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands. She submits that the evidence on record would establish that the subject matter lands are nearer to the land situate in the neighbouring village which was sold vide Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2004. She also submits that the learned Reference Court had rightly relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is settled law that while fixing the market value, when there are no sales in the concerned Village where the lands are situated, the market value of the lands in the adjoining villages or the Award in respect of the same can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel contends that there are no merits, much less, valid grounds in the present appeals and seeks dismissal of the same. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and the perused the material available on record. 7. On an appreciation of the rival 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? 8. 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. Ex.A1-Certified copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004 was marked, wherein an extent of 0.68 cents was sold for Rs.68,000/- which works to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. Ex.B1, Copy of Award No.62/2006, dated 20.03.2006 was marked with consent. 4 9. PW1 in his evidence categorically stated that the acquired lands are black soils suitable for growing commercial as well as food crops. PW3, the Mandal Agricultural Officer in his evidence stated that the villages viz., Mahadevapuram, Chennuru, Gundampadu, Govindapalli, Gangavaram, Boilakuntla, Mothukulapalli and Isukapalli are within his jurisdiction and that they have similar crop pattern and productivity. He further deposed that the said villages are situated within a distance of 10 kms. radius. As per the evidence of P.W.2, Ex.A1 land and the acquired lands are similar in nature, potentiality and market value and they are situated within a radius of 1 to 2 Kms. Nothing contra could be elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 that Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2004 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, documentary evidence (Ex.B1) adduced by the Referring Officer in the absence of filing of the sale statistics/transactions before the Reference Court, cannot be appreciated. 10. 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 Patel1, 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. 11. In the present case, the lands are acquired for Telugu Ganga Project and it is not in dispute that they are fertile black cotton soil lands. There is a time gap of more than one year between the Ex.A1 sale deed dated 09.02.2004 and the Section 4(1) Notification dated 04.10.2005. The Reference Court has taken into consideration the value appreciation @ 10% 1 (2005) 6 SCC 454 5 per annum, though as per Om Prakash vs. Union of India2, the same may be taken up to 12% per annum, in which event, the respondents/claimants are entitled to more compensation. However, they have not filed appeals. Be that as it may. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view 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. 13. Point for consideration is therefore, answered against the appellant. 14. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. 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 2 (2004) 10 SCC 627