1 APHC010670412013 Judgment reserved on : 27.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on : 03.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on : 03.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 349/2013 Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) & LAO, GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA, PRESENTLY AT RAJAHMUNDRY. ...APPELLANT AND 1. LANKA SIROMANI, W/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, R/o G.Konduru Village & Mandal, Krishna Dist. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CH B R P SEKHAR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAAS No.349 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon9ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Introductory:- [i] This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short 8the Act9 ] and directed against the orders dated 28.02.2013 passed in LAOP No.17 of 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. [ii] The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) and Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada, who made reference under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed the present appeal, questioning the compensation fixed as excessive. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as the claimants and referring officer. Facto matrix:- 3. [i] For the construction of Booster Station by the Gas Authority of India Ltd., Vijayawada, land measuring Ac.23.36 cents in G. Konduru village was acquired under award No.1/2003, dated 02.08.2003, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for certain lands and 3 Rs.1,25,000/- per acre for certain other lands, apart from other incidental benefits. [ii] Considering the application/protest of the claimant/ one Lanka Siromani as to inadequacy of compensation and the price fixed and also the objection as to non-consideration of crop etc., present in the lands, reference was made in terms of section 18 of the land Acquisition Act. Contention of the claimant before the referral Court:- 4. [i] The land in an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in R.S.No.245/B1 and an extent of Ac.0.80cents in R.S.No.247/1C of G.Konduru village of G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, in total Ac.0-97 cents belonging to the claimant/Lanka Siromani was acquired. [ii] Land Acquisition Officer failed to consider the circumstances and mechanically fixed the compensation. [iii] The land fetched @₹10,00,000/- to Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, when it is sold as residential plots, in surrounding areas. [iv] Minimum value of the land cost is ₹10,00,000/- per acre, which was ignored. [v] As promised employment was not provided to the claimant. 4 [vi] Compensation fixed for the crop is also very low. [vii] The claimant is entitled for compensation for the land @Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as minimum and more than what is awarded for standing crop, trees and plants. Contention of the Land Acquisition Officer:- 5. [i] The amount claimed by the claimant is exaggerated. [ii] The sale transactions in the village for the relevant period were rightly considered, covering the years 1999 to 2002. [iii] Registration statistics for (3) years preceding the last date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was considered. [iv] Two sales in the year 1999, 34 sales in the year 2000, 27 sales in the year 2001, 16 sales in the year 2002, were considered and the market value is fixed @Rs.1,25,000/- per acre in respect of the lands nearer to the road and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of the lands far away from the road. The valuation is justified. [v] As per the basic register maintained by the Sub-Registrar, the value of the land is Rs.40,000/- per acre. 5 [vi] The rates of cotton paddy, paragrass, Deenanadh grass, green gram, red gram and black gram were obtained from the Assistant Director of agriculture and for drumstick crop, opinion was given by the Commissioner and Director of Horticulture, A.P.. The land value and solatium and additional allowances, compensation, value of trees etc., fixed are at reasonable. Findings of the Referral Court:- 6. [i] As per the evidence of witnesses, the acquired land is up level dry land and it is suitable for house sites. [ii] In respect of certain lands the sale transactions is ranging around Rs.9,68,000/- per acre. But as the said sales are in respect of small extent, the same cannot be the basis. [iii] Certain lands were sold in square yards with higher value. Lands covered by those sales are at some distance vide R.S.No.247/1B, but the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken the same into consideration. . [iv] In respect of the lands in R.S.No.212, price was shown at Rs.16,00,000/- but they are at a distance of 220 meters. [v] In respect of some sales of lands covered by R.S.No.246, the value is around Rs.7,26,000/-, but the extent is only 716 Sq.Yards. 6 [vi] Certain lands surrounding acquired land were developed as house plots and in some lands houses were constructed. [vii] Basing on the evidence placed by the claimants, the value of the land is acceptable @Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and the incidental benefits as per the law laid down in AIR 2001 (SC) 3516. Arguments in the appeal:- 7. For the Referring Officer/Land Acquisition Officer :- (i) The Referral Court erred in enhancing the compensation. (ii) There is no rationality in arriving the compensation @Rs.5,00,000/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. (iii) The lands acquired are agricultural lands whereas the referral Court has taken the value of lands sold in small pieces in Sq.Yards (iv) The assessment of the Land Acquisition Officer was scientific and as per the sales of preceding (3) years. 7 For the claimants:- 8. [i] The compensation awarded by the Referral Court is proper and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgement. [ii] The referral Court should have enhanced the compensation for standing crop and drumstick plants also. 9. Heard learned counsel on both sides extensively and perused the record. 10. Thoughtful consideration is given to the augments advanced by both sides. 11. Points that arise for determination in these appeals are:- 1) Whether the compensation fixed by the Referral Court viz. Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid under the decree and order dated 28.02.2013 in L.A.O.P.No.17 of 2005 is just and reasonable? Or require any modification? If so, to what extent and on what grounds? 2) What is the result of L.A.A.S. No.349 of 2013? Point No.1: 12. The claimant herein did not choose to file any appeal questioning the quantum of compensation or the value of the land fixed. Some other claimants filed the appeals disputing the quantum and claiming interest on the land value till 4(1) notification from the date of taking possession. The evidence adduced by parties in all the claims is substantially same. Various sale transactions are 8 considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants have also placed registered sale transactions in respect of the lands adjacent to the land acquired covered by the subject notification. The land value, according to the claimants is around Rs.10,00,000/- as per the sale transactions relied on by them. The reasoning of the learned Referral Court is that the sales relied on by the claimants are not of large extents but they are of small extents as well as in square yards, whereas the land acquired under the notification is in acres. Therefore, the price of land sold in square yards cannot be the basis; at the same time, the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is also low. In the process of development and particularly for the public purpose the State acquiring the land is a civilised way. However, in that process reasonable compensation shall be paid is also settled law. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,1 vide para 3 referred to the factors which are required to be considered while awarding the compensation in land acquisition matters and the method of valuation, the observations are as follows: “3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the 1 (2001) 7 SCC 650 9 market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land. ….” 14. While quantifying the compensation for trees, plants, crops etc., the parameters adopted by the learned Referral Court are: 1) By the time of acquisition itself, there is demand for land. 2) The sales would show that there was need for house sites. 3) The fact of selling the land in square yards in the near vicinity would suggest that the lands acquired are likely to meet purpose of the house sites also. 10 4) The valuation of trees, plants, crops etc., was done by Land Acquisition Officer seeking the information from the concerned department like Horticulture and other departments while fixing the value and the same is proper. 15. As per the evidence of witnesses, the acquired land is an up level land suitable for house constructions even and even by the time of acquisition of land, there is reasonable development and the lands were sold in the form of plots, and certain houses were also constructed. The land cannot be taken as commercial nor it can be considered as unuseful land. Even as per the sale transactions referred by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award, in respect of certain lands viz., the value is around and even exceeds Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, particularly in respect of R.S.No.245, which appears to be nearer to R.S.Nos.244, 247 and 248. The value of the land near to the subject land now under acquisition is shown around ₹5,00,000/- per acre in some sales. Therefore, the fixation of land value by the learned Referral Court cannot be found fault. 16. There is no dispute about the value fixed by Land Acquisition Officer for trees, plants, crop etc., in this case, Referral Court did not interfere. No appeal is filed by the claimant. Therefore, the scope of present appeal is in respect of value of the land alone. 11 17. Upon considering the material available on record, and the contentions of both sides, this Court finds that the argument for the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer that the value of the land fixed by the Referral Court is excessive merits no consideration. Therefore, the point No.1 framed is answered against the appellant. Points No.2 :- 18. In view of the aforestated reasons and conclusions drawn under Point No.1 in the result, (i) the appeal is dismissed. (ii) The decree and order, dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in LAOP No.17 of 2005 shall stand confirmed. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (iv) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 03 .03.2026 Pnr 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 349/2013 Dt. 03-03-2026 Pnr