Special Deputy Collector vs K.Sunkanna
2023 Latest Caselaw 4003 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                                  AND

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO


 LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.557, 918, 1093 & 1098 of 2011

COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

      Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the

appellant and Sri B. Nagi Reddy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf

of Smt. Harija Akkineni, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These Appeals are preferred by the State against the common

order, dated 19.01.2010, passed in L.A.O.P. Nos.152, 150, 159, 155 of

2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Nandyal, respectively.

3. All these appeals pertain to lands acquired under the same

notification, dated 21.04.2007. Therefore, these appeals are heard

together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

4. The Special Deputy Collector (LA & REH), Srisailam Project,

Kurnool, issued notification for acquisition of private lands for public

purpose of widening "Srisailam Right Bank Canal". The said

notification was issued on 23.04.2007. Pursuant to the said

notification, lands of the respondents were acquired as per Award,

dated 07.07.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market

value of the land at the rate of Rs.84,000/- per acre for the purpose of

paying the compensation. The owners of the lands, who are not

satisfied with the market value that was fixed by the L.A.O. made a

request for reference.

5. Accordingly, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") to the reference Court

i.e., learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. By the

impugned order, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation

from Rs.84,000/- per acre to Rs.1,58,000/- per acre.

6. The reference Court found that the lands that were acquired are

all fertile lands and commercial crops are being raised in the said

lands and it has been fetching much income to the owners of the said

lands and on the basis of Ex.B4 decree and judgment passed in

respect of the lands acquired in the same vicinity in the year 1999,

whereby compensation per acre was fixed at Rs.36,000/- at that time,

has taken the progressive value of the land per year at the rate of 12%

per annum for eight years from the year 1999 to 2007 when the

present lands were acquired and on the basis of the ratio laid down by

the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash (dead) by Lrs. v. Union of

India1 and also on the basis of the previous transactions of the lands

that took place under Exs.B1 and B2, enhanced the compensation

from Rs.84,000/- per acre to Rs.1,58,000/- per acre.

(2004) 10 SCC 627

7. Therefore, the reference Court has taken into consideration the

previous sale transactions under Exs.B1 and B2 and particularly

considering the value of the land, as arrived in Ex.B4 - Award in the

year 1999 and enhanced the compensation for the present lands to

Rs.1,58,000/- by accepting the increase in the value at 12% per

annum from the year 1999 till the year 2007 per year.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the

appellants would submit that as per the proposition of law laid down

by the Apex Court in the above cited case, only 10% of the value of the

land is to be taken towards escalation of price and the reference Court

has erroneously taken 12% of the value of the land towards increase

per year and the same legally unsustainable. He would also submit

that, although commercial crops are being raised in the lands that are

acquired under the present Award, there is no documentary evidence

produced by the owners of the land to prove that they are getting

Rs.34,000/- or more income per acre on the said lands and in the

absence of any such documentary evidence, the said oral evidence

cannot be considered. These are the two main grounds on which the

learned Government Pleader for Appeals would question the legal

validity of the impugned common Award whereby the compensation

for the land acquired is enhanced to Rs.1,58,000/- per acre from

Rs.84,000/- per acre.

9. As can be seen from the common order passed in L.A.A.S.

No.583 of 2008 and batch, the lands that were acquired in the said

cases were also acquired for the similar purpose of widening the

Srisailam Right Bank Canal. They are all in the adjacent villages.

Similarly, as in these cases, the value of the land acquired was initially

fixed at Rs.84,000/- per acre and the same was enhanced to

Rs.1,85,000/- per acre by the reference Court. On the basis of the law

laid down by the earlier Division Bench in K.V. Ramana Reddy v.

Special Deputy Collector, L.A. and Reh. SSP, Kurnool2, the

Division Bench held that the Court has considered the appeals filed by

the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation for the lands

acquired for the same purpose in the adjoining Village called Vanala

and taking into consideration the enhancement of compensation per

acre from Rs.84,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- per acre, the enhancement of

compensation from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.1,90,000/- per acre for the

said land in question was confirmed.

10. Again on the basis of the said common judgment in L.A.A.S.

No.583 of 2008 and batch, another batch of appeals in L.A.A.S.

Nos.137 of 2012 and batch were also allowed confirming the

enhancement of compensation of land from Rs.84,000/- to

Rs.1,93,600/- per acre. On the basis of the said judgment, recently

again this Court, as per common judgment, dated 28.08.2023, passed

2013 (6) ALT 649 (D.B)

in L.A.A.S. No.516 of 2011 and batch, confirmed the enhancement of

compensation.

11. Therefore, in view of the earlier judgments which are referred to

above, as this Appeal is also a covered matter, we absolutely do not

see any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order warranting our

interference with the same.

12. In fact, the compensation that was originally granted at the rate

of Rs.84,000/- per acre was enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- and

Rs.1,93,600/- and Rs.1,58,000/- respectively by the reference Court

in all the above judgments and the same was confirmed by this Court

in the Appeals preferred by the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the compensation that was enhanced from Rs.84,000/- to

Rs.1,58,000/- in these Appeals is not justified or it is illegal.

13. In Om Prakash case (1 supra) that is already referred above,

the Apex Court has upheld the increase of the value of the land at the

rate of 12% per annum progressively. Therefore, the reference Court

has rightly taken the progressive value of the land per annum at the

rate of 12%. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in it. Further, there

cannot be any documentary evidence or proof for the income on the

agricultural land. Therefore, the contention raised to that effect by

learned Government Pleader for Appeals cannot be countenanced. In

fact, in the above referred judgment of the Apex Court also i.e. Om

Prakash case (1 supra), in the absence of any evidence, the Court

held that the progressive value of the land can reasonably be fixed at

the rate of 12% per annum. Therefore, we find no merit in the Appeals.

14. Resultantly, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suits are dismissed

confirming the impugned order of the reference Court. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 04.09.2023 AKN

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.557, 918, 1093 & 1098 of 2011

Date: 04-09-2023

AKN