APHC010085222003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO APPEAL SUIT (LAND ACQUISITION) No.4184 of 2003 Between: 1. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Podalakur, Nellore. ...Appellant AND 1. Bandaru Sudhakar, S/o.Gopalakrishnaiah, R/o.Thimmarajupalli Village, Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1998 in O.P. No.316 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. 2. Aggrieved by the orders of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre in respect of Category–I Wet lands and from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.19,000/- per acre in respect of Category–II Dry lands, the State preferred the appeal. 2 AS (LA) No.4184 of 2003 3. Heard Mr.T.Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 4. An extent of Ac.0.78 cents and Ac.0.48 cents of the respondent/ claimant situated in Survey No.122/2 and Survey No.1/1 of Thimmarajupalli Village, was acquired for the purpose of Somasila Project, pursuant to the Notification dated 12.8.1980 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, at the time of conducting enquiry, classified the lands into Category–I and Category–II i.e., wet and dry lands respectively and passed an Award dated 16.9.1986 awarding a sum of Rs.13,000/- per acre for Category–I lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre for Category–II lands. The respondent/claimant while receiving the compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming a compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre. He also claimed fixation of market value for Badam trees at Rs.1,500/- and Margosa trees at Rs.500/- per tree. The O.P., filed by the respondent/claimant was clubbed along with the connected O.Ps. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the Referring Officer P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1, copy of the Award No.9/1986, dated 16.9.1986, was marked. On behalf of the claimants, R.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked. 6. The learned Reference Court, after examining the material on record, vide common order dated 23.10.1998 enhanced the compensation in respect of Category–I lands from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre and in respect of Category–II lands from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.19,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeal has been preferred. 3 AS (LA) No.4184 of 2003 7. The learned Special Government Pleader, inter alia contends that the order of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation is without any valid basis and not sustainable in Law. He submits that the learned Reference Court, while holding that the respondents/claimants failed to adduce cogent evidence, only by taking the sympathetic view, enhanced the compensation and the same is not tenable. 8. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court? Point: 9. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention here that against the common order dated 23.10.1998, the State had preferred appeals vide L.A.A.S. No.887 of 2006, A.S. No.2899 of 2003, A.S. No.3906 of 2003 etc., and the same appears to have been dismissed as withdrawn by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.101, Irrigation & CAD (Projects Wing-L.A.IV-R.R.II) Department, dated 20.2.2006. In view of the same, the present appeal arising out of the common order is liable to be dismissed. However, in view of the instructions placed by the learned Special Government Pleader dated 22.2.2025 received from the Special Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore/the appellant herein, the matter is being disposed of, on merits. 10. As noted earlier, in respect of the claim for enhancement, the landlosers/claimants in different O.Ps., examined as many as ten witnesses i.e., R.Ws.1 to 10. Though all the witnesses had categorically deposed that the value of the lands would be around Rs.50,000/- per acre, the learned Reference Court by giving reasons, had not given much weight to their version. However, it also opined that some guess work is to be made for fixation of market value reasonably. Such a view of the 4 AS (LA) No.4184 of 2003 learned Reference Court cannot be found fault with, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, R.W.6 in his evidence deposed with regard to Ex.B.7 Certified Copy of the common order dated 28.12.1992 in L.A.O.P. Nos.1040 and 1043 of 1988. The learned Reference Court had not given credence to his evidence by opining that R.W.6 is concentrating only with regard to trees and he is not interested, so far as the claim with regard to the lands is concerned. R.W.9 in his evidence categorically stated that the lands belonging to his brother situated in Rangarayapalli Village were acquired for Somasila Project and on Reference, the market value of Category–I Land was enhanced from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.20,800/- per acre vide Ex.B.7 dated 28.12.1992, that the lands in Rangarayapalli and Thimmarajupalli are similar and adjacent lands. However, the Reference Court has not taken into account Ex.B.7 Common Order in L.A.O.P. No.1040 of 1988 on the premise that R.W.9 is not a party to the said order, which is not tenable. Be that as it may. Looking to the material on record and categorical assertions of the claimant’s witnesses, which remained unshaken, this Court see justification in the enhancement of the market value from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.19,000/- per acre. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader that only by taking a sympathetic view the learned Reference Court had enhanced the compensation. This Court see no good reasons to interfere with the order under challenge. The point is, accordingly, answered. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J March 06, 2025 vasu