Malireddy Viswanatha Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 9098 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Malireddy Viswanatha Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer on 3 October, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

 APHC010414632011
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                        [3495]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

     LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOS: 681, 690, 693, 694, 695, 705,
                708, 709, 733, 734, 735, 744, 745 and 759 of 2011

Between:

Yerrabolu Purushotham Reddy and others,                       ...APPELLANTS

                                       AND

Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer            ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. A. JAYANTHI

COMMON JUDGMENT (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao):

1. These Land Acquisition Appeal Suits arise out of the Common Order, dated 22.02.2011, passed in O.P.Nos.260 of 2009 and batch and O.P.Nos.263 of 2009 and batch on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (hereinafter referred to as "Reference Court") whereby the compensation for the land acquired was enhanced from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per acre.

2. This batch of Appeals arises from the same land acquisition Notification dated 06.03.2007 for the land of villages Udumalpuram and Moolasagaram, Nandhyal, Kurnool District and involve common facts and questions;

therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all these first Appeals have been heard together treating the L.A.A.S. No.681 of 2011 as the leading first Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their ranking in the Reference Court.

4. The Government has issued a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.2,63,000/- per Acre in respect of the lands vide Award No.3 of 2008 dated 20.02.2008.

5. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in Award No.3/2008 dated 20.02.2008, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, several Land Owners submitted references under Section 18 of the Act. These references were adjudicated by the Orders dated 22.02.2011, in leading O.P.No.260 of 2009 and batch and O.P.No.263 of 2009 and batch, before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per Acre. Aggrieved by these common orders, the Appellants/Claimants have filed the present First Appeals.

6. Briefly stated facts of the present Appeals for referring the matters by the Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O.) to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act are as follows:

(a) The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition) in Nandyal acquired a total of 9.73 acres of land across various survey numbers in the villages of Moolasagaram and Udumalpuram, located within the Sub-Registration District of Nandyal and the Registration District of

Kurnool. This land, owned and possessed by Claimants specified by the State Government, was declared necessary for the construction of a diversion road and a high-level bridge across the Kundu River, extending from K.M. ½ of the Nandyal to Atmakur road to intersect with NH 18 at KM 20/8, as published in the A.P. Gazette No. 07/K.N.L., Part-I, Extraordinary, dated 06.03.2007.

(b) The Land Acquisition Officer conducted a thorough inquiry into considering various circumstances and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published simultaneously. General notices, as required under Sections 9(1), 10, and 9(3) of the Act, were also issued. Following this inquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer issued an award (Award No. 3/2008) on 20.02.2008, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.2,63,000/- per Acre. To determine this market value, the Officer reviewed 108 sale transactions that occurred within the village limits of Moolasagaram and 85 transactions in Udumalpuram, all relating to dry lands within the three years preceding the Section 4(1) notification. However, the Claimants received the compensation under protest. They requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

7. The Claimants/Appellants filed their respective claim statements, and the claims of the Claimants are as follows:

(a) The Award issued by the Land Acquisition Officer is unjust, improper, and not maintainable. The Referring Officer/L.A.O., and the Surveyor failed to inspect the acquired lands before passing the Award, a fact not acknowledged in the Award itself. Furthermore, they did not conduct a thorough inquiry and did not provide the Claimants with an opportunity to present evidence.

(b) The method employed by the Referring Officer/L.A.O., in determining the compensation lacks both factual and legal basis, failing to

adhere to the principles outlined in the Land Acquisition Act. The L.A.O., did not take into account the potential of the acquired land when assessing its market value. Additionally, the statistics presented by the L.A.O., in the Award are inaccurate.

(c) The Referring Officer/L.A.O., did not take into account the sales and purchasers of neighbouring survey numbers related to the acquired land. The categorization of lands by the Referring Officer/L.A.O., is irrational and arbitrary. Additionally, he failed to assess the loss and inconvenience that the Claimants would experience due to the severance of their land into fragmented parcels as a result of the piecemeal acquisition.

(d) The acquired land is highly fertile, consisting of black cotton soil.

The lands in Moolasagaram and Udumalpuram villages possess similar characteristics, potential, and market value. The acquired land was irrigated by water from the Kundu River and used to cultivate commercial crops such as groundnut, cotton, tobacco, sunflower, and various food crops, including Bengal gram, red gram, chillies, and paddy. Notably, Sneha Old Age Home is located just 20 feet away, while National Highway 18 and the railway track are approximately 400 feet distant, indicating that this area is developing. An agro factory owned by S.P.Y.Reddy is situated to the northwest of the acquired land. The Claimants, being agriculturists, rely solely on the acquired lands for their livelihood, with an annual net yield of approximately Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per Acre. Given these factors, the price set by the Referring Officer/L.A.O. at Rs.2,63,000/- per Acre is considerably low; the true market value is closer to Rs.40,00,000/- per Acre.

(e) The acquired land possesses all the qualities characteristic of a district headquarters, serving as a prominent business and educational centre. Nandyal is home to engineering and medical colleges, I.T.I. institutions, as well as numerous schools and colleges. The diversion

road is primarily constructed to provide access to two railway-level crossings and connects to National Highway 18, with several industries located in the vicinity of the acquired land. This land is well-suited for establishing educational institutions, industries, factories, and residential colonies, as it is just 100 meters from the Kundu River. The Claimants seek to establish the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,00,000/- per Acre as of the date of the Section 4(1) notification. They request that this amount be awarded along with a solatium of 30% per annum, additional market value at 12% per annum, and subsequent interest at rates of 9% and 15% per annum, encompassing the total compensation, which includes market value, additional market value, and solatium.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the Reference Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Ex.A2 Award is reasonable or needs any enhancement; if so, what is the proper estimate of the market value of the acquired lands?

(2) To what relief?

9. During the common enquiry to substantiate the Claimant's claim, the Claimants were examined as R.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B6 and Ex.X1. The Land Acquisition Officer/Referring Officer is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

10. After the completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per Acre. Consequently, awarded 30% solatium on the market value fixed as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act; additional market value @ 12% per annum on such market value from the date of Sec.4(1) Notification of the Act till the date of Award; also awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of Section 4(1) Notification of the Act

for one year and after that at 15% per annum till the date of payment on the enhanced market value, additional market value and solatium.

11. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants, contends that the acquired land situated in Moolasagaram Village has effectively become part of Nandyal Town and is highly suitable for residential development. Exs.B.2 and B.3, which are sale deeds from the same vicinity, clearly demonstrate that the land commands a price of Rs.50,000/- per cent, indicating its potentiality for house sites. The trial court should have recognized that Moolasagaram is now an integral part of Kurnool Town, as evidenced by Exs.B.4, B.5, and X.1. The market value of the land is significantly high, reaching up to Rs.1/- Crore per Acre. However, the Reference court failed to consider Exs.B.1 and B.6 and did not appreciate the fundamental fact that the acquired land is within an urban agglomeration and highly suitable for both residential and commercial purposes, as supported by positive evidence in the record. Although the prevailing market value of the acquired land is Rs.1/- Crore per Acre, the Claimants sought only Rs.40/- lakhs per Acre, without adequately considering the oral testimony of R.Ws.1 to 4 and the documentary evidence, including Exs.B.1 to B.6 and X.1, the trial court enhanced meagre amounts as compensation from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per Acre.

12. Per contra, Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader, representing Respondent/State, contends that the Reference Court correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion while enhancing the reasonable compensation amount to the Claimants. The reasons given by the Reference Court do not require any interference.

13. Having regard to the pleadings in the Original Petitions, the findings recorded by the Reference Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination:

1) Is the acquired lands' market value determined by the Reference Court lawful and adequate?

2) Does the Orders of the Reference Court needs any interference?

POINT NOs.1 & 2:

14. All these first Appeals involve land acquisition for villages Udumalpuram and Moolasagaram. Particulars of land acquisition references and the acquired lands, which are the subject matter of first Appeals, are as follows:

Total extent of land The Amount Amount acquired amount Awarded claimed L.A.A.S. Arising by Sl. awarded by in this Name of the from Responde No No. by Reference Appeal Appellant O.P.No. nt L.A.O. Court (Rs.per (subject (Rs. per (Rs.per acre) matter of Acre) acre) Appeals) 1 Yerrabolu 681/2011 405/2009 Ac.1.24 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Purushotham Reddy 2 Kothamiddela 690/2011 268/2009 Ac.0.05 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Sivalakshmamma 3 Malireddy 693/2011 266/2009 Ac.0.50 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Viswanatha Reddy 4 Sagireddy 694/2011 258/2009 Ac.0.22 ½ 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Venkateswaramma 5 Sagireddy Venkata 695/2011 256/2009 Ac.1.17 ½ 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Subba Reddy 6 Chatakonda 705/2011 270/2009 Ac.0.30 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Vijayabharathi 7 Deereddy Thimma 708/2011 263/2009 Ac.1.09 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Reddy 8 Sagireddy 709/2011 259/2009 Ac.0.53 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Sudhakara Reddy 9 Medam Rami 733/2011 261/2009 Ac.0.08 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Reddy 10 Deereddy Jayarami 734/2011 264/2009 Ac.1.18 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Reddy 11 Medam Vengal 735/2011 267/2009 Ac.0.25 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Reddy 12 Pushpalalithamma 744/2011 262/2009 Ac.0.96 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 13 Sagireddy Lakshmi 745/2011 257/2009 Ac.0.22 ½ 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 Devamma 14 Edara Buchireddy 759/2011 265/2009 Ac.1.07 2,63,000 3,90,000 6,00,000 by his L.R.s.

                                        Total          Ac.9.73
                                                        cents

15. It is not in dispute that the Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Nandyal, had acquired land of an extent of Ac.9.73 cents in various survey numbers of Moolasagaram and Udumalpuram villages of Nandyal for the formation of diversion road and construction of high-level bridge across Kundu river and passed award No.3/2008, dated 20.02.2008 fixing the market value at Rs.2,63,000/-, by the L.A.O., vide Ex.A.1.

16. As seen from the record, the Draft Notification Under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been approved in Kurnool Collector's proceedings No.G1-366/2007, dated 21.02.2007 and published in the A.P.Gazette No.07/K.N.L., part I, Extraordinary, dated 06.03.2007. The 2A Telugu Notification has been published in two daily newspapers, namely (1) Andhra Bhoomi, dated 10.03.2007 and (2) Krishna Patrika, dated 10.03.2007. The substance of the Notification has been published in the village on 10.03.2007. The Draft Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been approved in Kurnool Collector's proceedings No.R.Dis.(G1) 366/2007, dated 12.03.2007 and published in the A.P.Gazette No.9/KNL, Part I, Extraordinary, dated 24.03.2007. The 5A Telugu Notification has been published in two daily newspapers, namely (1) Andhra Jyothi, dated 26.03.2007 and (2) Ushodayam, dated 27.03.2007. The substance of the Notification has been published in the village on 31.03.2007.

17. The first factor provided in Section 23(1) of the Act specifically provides that for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the Notification in the Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act. Thus, the market value of land acquired under the Act has to be determined by the Court as of the publication date of the Notification in the Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act. This view is supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Chamanlal Hargovind Das V. S.L.A.O. 1 , Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma and others2, Manoj Kumar and others V. State of Haryana and others3.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Chamanlal Hargovind Das V. S.L.A.O. (supra), Bhupal Singh Vs. State of Haryana,4 Manoj Kumar and others (supra), Union of India V. Dyagala Devamma and others 5 and Bhupal Singh V. State of Haryana and others6, specifically considered a similar question of determination of market value under Section 23 of the Act and held that the market value of the acquired land is required to be determined based on the market rate of the adjacent land similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and before the acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition.

19. Thus, per the settled principle of law, compensation for the land acquired must be determined at market value. Market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property, having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out most advantageously, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired.

The determination of market value predicts an economic event, viz., a price outcome of a hypothetical sale expressed in probabilities. The potentiality of the acquired land should also be considered when ascertaining the land's market value. Potentiality means the capacity or possibility for changing or developing into a state of actuality.

20. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal V. Collector 7 and

(1988) 3 SCC 751

(2018) 8 SCC 485

(2018) 13 SCC 96

(2015) 5 SCC 801

(2018) 8 SCC 485

(2018) 13 SCC 96

MANU/SC/0008/1988

after that, in Ram Kanwar V. State of Haryana 8 has held that given the statutory intention behind the term market value, the natural chronology is that the sale exemplar reflecting the price paid by the willing buyer to a willing seller would be the most relevant piece of facts for determining such value.

21. Thus, it is settled law that the market value of the land acquired is determined concerning the market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood by a willing seller to a willing buyer on or before the date of preliminary Notification, i.e. under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894, as that would give a fair indication of market value.

22. In support of their claims, the Claimants referenced Ex.B.6, which is a certified copy of the Common Orders from O.P.No.211 of 2000 and its batch cases, filed in the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court in Nandyal, dated 20.07.2006. This Order indicates that the Sub-Collector and Land Acquisition Officer of Nandyal acquired a total of 1.65 acres in Survey No.313/1B1 and 3.05 acres in Survey No. 542/2B2, both belonging to the Claimants. The land, located in Moolasagaram village, was acquired for the construction of a 220 KV Substation at Nandyal, as detailed in Award No. 6/95, dated December 28, 1995.

23. Upon reviewing Exs.B.1 to B.4 submitted in O.P.No.211 of 2000, the learned Senior Civil Judge of Nandyal fixed the market value of the land at Rs.5,00,000/- vide Ex.B.6 Award. However, the Reference Court did not provide any rationale for its decision to disregard this valuation. Reviewing the Award in Ex.B.6 reveals that the lands acquired in O.P.No.211 of 2000 are also located in Moolasagaram village. It is important to note that the lands in the current O.P. are similarly situated in Moolasagaram and Udumalpuram villages.

24. At this juncture, it is important to highlight the testimony of PW.1, K.Madhavi Latha, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who deposed to her

MANU/SC/1252/2014

familiarity with the case details and based her statements on the records. Furthermore, she confirmed that Udumalpuram village is located approximately one to one-and-a-half kilometres from the National Highway, while the B.G. railway line is within 100 meters of NH-18. Notably, the lands referenced in Ex.A.1 are agricultural in nature. Additionally, it is pertinent to refer to the cross-examination of RW.1 (Claimant) in L.A.O.P.No.260 of 2009, which follows:

National Highway is indeed passing through Udumalpur village. The acquired lands are to the south of the National Highway. It is true that the acquired land is opposite Nandi Dairy, and it is also adjacent to Autonagar. There is a Thokatichedu road to the east of Nandi Milk Dairy, and the road was formed for S.R.B.C. Ayyakattu.

Notably, the lands in question were acquired under this earlier Award, while the lands covered by the current Award were acquired in 2008. The Reference Court should have explicitly recorded its reasons for not adopting the market value of Rs.5,00,000/- per Acre for the lands situated in Moolasagaram, as previously determined. However, Claimants supposed to demonstrate that the lands associated with Ex.A.1 are similar in fertility or potential compared to those referenced in Ex.B.6. While the Reference Court provided some rationale for not considering Exs.B.1 to B.5, it failed to justify its disregard for the market value established in Award No.6/95, dated 28.12.1995, perhaps due to lack of sufficient material regarding the fertility or potentiality of the lands.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of Gujarat 9 has held that in comparable instances of land, for determining market value, proximity should be determined from time and situation angle. No mathematical accuracy is required. Further purpose for which acquisition is made is also relevant factor for determination of market value and must be taken into consideration.

MANU/SC/0286/2005

26. Concerning factors of comparable sales, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra V. Union of India and another10 has referred to its earlier decision in Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others V. K.S. Gangadharappa and another11, and has observed that element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are satisfied, i.e.,(i) when the sale is within a reasonable time of the date of Notification under Section 4(1);

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) It should possess similar advantages.

27. The Claimants examined RW.3, E. Lakshmi Devi, to demonstrate that she purchased 1.10 acres in Survey No.430/B within the village limits of Udumalpuram and Moolasagaram for a valid consideration of Rs.5,60,000/-, as evidenced by Ex.B.1. During her cross-examination, RW.3 testified that the property covered by Ex.B.1 lies within the panchayat limits of both villages. She further stated that the vendor of Ex.B.1 is not related to her and that the land is used for cultivating paddy, cotton, and other crops. Notably, this land is situated approximately two furlongs from the National Highway, and the acquired land is adjacent to the property described in Ex.B.1. The Respondents did not assert that the sale transaction documented in Ex.B.1 was conducted in anticipation of land acquisition proceedings or that the parties involved are related to the Claimants, thus questioning the genuineness of the transaction. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the Ex.B.1 transaction lacks authenticity. Given that the Claimants are not parties to Ex.B.1, and it constitutes a sale deed between third parties, it cannot be concluded that the Claimants are responsible for this transaction. Furthermore, no evidence suggests that the Claimants orchestrated this sale. The Land Acquisition Officer was unable to establish any connection, however tenuous, between the Claimants and the Ex.B.1 sale transaction.

(2015) 2 SCC 262

(2009) 11 SCC 164

Consequently, it cannot be claimed that Ex.B.1 was created to inflate the compensation amount.

28. The evidence presented by the Claimants indicates that they are actually cultivating crops such as groundnuts, chillies, jowar, red gram, and Bengal gram. This assertion remains undisputed. Conversely, PW.1, the Revenue Divisional Officer, testified that she lacked personal knowledge regarding the Award. Importantly, PW.1 did not contest the Claimants' claim that they were engaged in agricultural activities as stated.

29. Thus, once the material is placed on record by the Claimants, it was good enough for consideration to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands on the relevant date, and the price determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was too low and inadequate. The exercise that ought to have been followed pursuant to such affirmative finding was to compare the best possible sale instance / Land Acquisition Award / Judgment amongst the transactions exhibited on record with the acquired lands which were closest in terms of proximity of time and distance for determining the market value on the relevant date. Instead, what has actually been done by the Reference Court is to the contrary. The Reference Court, without thoroughly analyzing the documents, particularly Exs.B.1 and B.6, which contain comparable transactions, concluded that the potential value of the land is set at Rs.3,90,000/-, up from Rs.2,63,000/-.

30. The above finding, returned by the Reference Court, is without any comparison, basis or consideration, and it is a mere opinion expressed by the Reference Court. Naturally being aggrieved with this finding, the First Appeal is filed before this Court seeking a determination of market value for acquired lands on the relevant date based on evidence. What is seen is that once there was enough material evidence available before the Reference Court in the form of comparable sale transactions, certified copies of Awards / Judgments passed in similarly placed Land Acquisition Reference cases, the Reference Court ought to have chosen the best possible comparable instance and

considered the same for determining market value which was in close proximity of time and distance to the relevant date / acquired lands. Reference Court ought to have determined the market value of acquired lands by comparing the market value awarded in the best / most comparable instance. If the Reference Court would have explained the purported aspects or basis on which it arrived @ Rs. 3,90,000/- per Acre, it would have been acceptable, but on a plain reading of the Reference Court Order, that exercise is absent and a lumpsum figure of Rs.3,90,000/- is fixed per Acre as market value of acquired lands on the relevant date. Rather, the Reference Court has given its opinion without assigning any basis or reasons fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.3,90,000/- per Acre on the relevant date. Hence, the Order of the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with.

31. As already noted, the Draft Notification Under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been approved in Kurnool Collector's proceedings No.G1- 366/2007, dated 21.02.2007 and published in the A.P.Gazette No.07/K.N.L., part I, Extraordinary, dated 06.03.2007 and RW.3 purchased an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy. No.430/B with the village limits of Udumalpuram and Moolasagaram, Nandyal, for valid consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- under Ex.B.1 dated 20.11.2006, and thereby, the value of the one Acre of land could be fixed at Rs.5,09,090/-. Though, such direct evidence of the most and best comparable instance of market value itself was available before the Reference Court, but, we find, there is no reason for the Reference Court not to consider the same and instead determine the market value on the basis of an opinion.

32. As Ex.B.1 sale transaction took place four months prior to the publication of the Notification for acquisition of the land in the present case and the land covered under Ex.B.1 transaction is situated very close to the acquired lands, the Reference Court should have relied upon the said document. It is settled law that instances of the sale of similar land situated in the same village and/or neighbouring villages should have been taken as guiding factors by the Reference Judge.

33. In our view, the only comparable instance on the basis of which the market value at the time of section 4 Notification in respect of the acquired lands can be determined is the sale proved by the sale deed (Ex.B.1), and the said transaction becomes the best. The most comparable instance for determining the market value of the acquired lands in terms of proximity of time and distance and the Reference Court did not consider the relevant exemplars and the testimony of the witnesses and other facts and merely fixed the market value at Rs.3,90,000/- which was not proper. The impugned Order of the Reference Court in not considering the Ex.B.1 sale deed and Ex.B.6 award is wholly erroneous and contrary to the mandate of section 23(1) of the Act and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred herein above. This Court views that if any relevant and bona fide sale deed exemplars were available, then the Reference Court should have considered those sale deed exemplars to determine the market value. The contention made by the Respondents that the Ex.B.1 sale deed does not reflect the correct market value appears to be not sound but wholly baseless. Without reliable evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that Ex.B.1 sale deed does not reflect the true consideration. In view of the above discussion, we hold that in the impugned Orders, the Reference Court has committed a manifest error of law in determining the market value of the acquired lands.

34. Taking into account this factor, including the situation and potentialities of the acquired lands, it would be proper to fix the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.5,09,090/- per Acre.

35. As a result, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suits are partly allowed, and the market value of the land is fixed at Rs.5,09,090/- per Acre as of the date of Notification. The Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,09,090/- per acre instead of Rs.3,90,000/- per Acre. Appellants will be entitled to all statutory benefits, including interest on the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The Respondents will now

have to deposit the compensation amount together with all statutory benefits after adjusting the payment already made, if any, within four (04) months from today. Thereafter, the Appellants will be entitled to withdraw the same. Modified Award be drawn, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Appeals, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 03.10.2024 MS / SAK

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOs: 681, 690, 693, 694, 695, 705, 708, 709, 733, 734, 735, 744, 745 and 759 of 2011

Date: 03.10.2024

MS