Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Spl Deputy Collector / Lao., Nandyal vs Medam Pedda Pullaiah on 29 August, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010009952011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3495]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.21, 24 & 125 of 2011
Between:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, R.G.P., NANDYAL
...APPELLANT
AND
1. G VIJAYA BHASKAR, S/o.late G.C.Subbaiah R/o.H.No.154/29-C,
Nandyal, Kurnool District. (L.A.A.S. No.21 of 2011)
...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS
Counsel for the Respondents:
1. ---
The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J)
Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 06.8.2010 of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in Original Petition Nos.424, 425
and 426 of 2009 enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,600/- to
Rs.34,600/- per acre, the present appeals have been preferred.
2. For excavation of 8R Sub-Minor of Singavaram Major Distributory
Canal from KM 0.000 to 1.270 KM in Block No.6 of Telugu Ganga Project,
2
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
a Gazette Notification dated 12.1.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of total extent of Acs.4.01
cents situated in various survey numbers of Ramapuram Village, Bandi
Atmakur Mandal. The Draft Notification was published on 15.6.1996 and
after issuing Draft Declaration, Award enquiry was conducted on
07.12.2001 and 26.12.2001. Subsequently, Award No.6 of 2001 dated
31.12.2001 was passed. For the purpose of awarding compensation, the
Land Acquisition Officer had classified the subject matter lands as rain-
fed dry lands and fixed the market value at Rs.12,600/- per acre, while
allowing the other benefits of solatium, additional market value etc.
Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer,
the claimants received the compensation under protest and sought for
enhancement of the compensation of the market value at the rate of
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, by referring the matter to the Civil Court.
3. Before the Reference Court, the claimants examined R.Ws.1 to 4
on their behalf and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. The Referring Officer had
not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Ex.A.1, copy of the
Award No.6 of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was marked with consent.
4. While deciding the question as to whether the Award No.6/2001
dated 31.12.2001 does not adequately compensate the claimants for the
loss of their lands, the learned Reference Court, after considering the
material on record, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by the
3
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
enhancement of compensation of the lands from Rs.12,600/- to
Rs.34,600/- per acre, State filed these appeals.
5. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader, assailing the said
enhancement, inter alia contends that the learned Reference Court
without any valid basis enhanced the compensation and the same is not
sustainable. It is his contention that the differential amount of Rs.2,100/-,
which is added to the value of the land at Rs.18,000/- per acre, is without
any valid basis and no cogent reasons were assigned for adding the said
amount of Rs.2,100/-. He also contends that the value appreciation of
the subject lands at the rate of 12% per annum, as adopted by the
learned Reference Court, is not tenable and no reasons much less
cogent reasons were assigned for fixing the same. Placing reliance on
the decision of a Division Bench of the erstwhile common High Court in
L.A.A.S.No.1 of 2010 and batch, dated 21.11.2013, he contends that at
the most, escalation of prices may be taken at 10% and the value
appreciation should have been fixed at 10% per annum. In any event,
the learned Government Pleader submits that the enhancement, as made
by the learned Reference Court, is on higher side and the order under
challenge is liable to be set aside. Making the said submissions, he
seeks to allow the appeals.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
Government Pleader and perused the material on record. It is pertinent
4
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
to note that large extents of lands were acquired for the purpose of
Telugu Ganga Project canal in the year 1990 and in respect of the lands
in Chinnadevalapuram Village, as per the evidence adduced by the
claimants, the market value was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per acre and on
reference, the same was enhanced to Rs.18,000/- per acre. The subject
lands are adjacent to Chinnadevalapuram Village and they are similar in
nature with regard to its potentiality and market value.
7. Be that as it may. The learned Reference Court referring to
Exs.B.2 and B.4 i.e., common order in O.P.Nos.1 to 19 of 2009 and
Appeal No.1068 of 2004 in respect of the lands situate in various Villages
along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal, wherein it was
opined that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded insufficient
compensation and enhanced the same, appreciated the matter as to
whether the present claimants are entitled for enhancement on similar
lines. However, the learned Reference Court took into consideration
Ex.B.5 i.e., common order in O.P.No.5 of 1994 and batch, dated
30.10.2004 in respect of Award No.30/1991-92 dated 25.3.1991, wherein
the compensation fixed at Rs.10,600/- per Acre in respect of rain-fed dry
lands of Peddadevalapuram Village were enhanced to Rs.18,000/- per
acre. The learned Reference Court had also considered the aspect that
all these Villages are adjacent to each other, which are along with
5
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal and all these Villages are
comparatively proximate to each other.
8. Assigning the said reasons, the learned Reference Court had
enhanced the compensation to Rs.34,600/- from Rs.12,600/-. Though
the learned Government Pleader had sought to impress upon this Court
that the amount as enhanced by the learned Reference Court is without
any valid basis and no reasons with regard to the differential amount of
Rs.2,100/- are assigned, we are not inclined to appreciate these
contentions, as the learned Reference Court had taken note that the
lands acquired from the respondents/claimants are irrigated dry lands
whereas the lands, which are the subject matter of Ex.B.5 are rain-fed dry
lands for which the compensation was enhanced from Rs.10,600/- to
Rs.18,000/- per acre. Therefore, this Court feels that adding differential
amount of Rs.2,100/- in respect of irrigated dry lands is not unreasonable.
9. In so far as the other contention with reference to the decision of
the Hon'ble Division Bench referred to above, it would appear that in the
said cases, no documentary evidence was available and therefore, the
Division Bench held that value appreciation cannot be adopted. The said
decision is of no much aid to the appellant herein as, in the present case
the claimants adduced the oral and documentary evidence, which goes to
show that the subject matter lands are irrigated dry lands and the
appreciation of market value at 12% per annum, on the basis of the
6
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v.
Union of India1, as arrived at by the learned Reference Court is legally
valid.
10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the enhancement of compensation by the learned Reference
Court is just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA,J
______________________
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J
August 29, 2024
vasu
1
(2004) 10 SCC 627
7
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
//TRUE COPY//
NINALA JAYASURYA,J
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J
To,
2. Two CD Copies
8
LAAS_21_24_125_2011
HIGH COURT
NJSJ ,TMRJ
DATED:29/08/2024
ORDER
