Special Deputy Collector vs Smt.By Reddy Rajeswaramma
2024 Latest Caselaw 9425 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Special Deputy Collector vs Smt.By Reddy Rajeswaramma on 17 October, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

APHC010513572015

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

         THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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 No.368 of 2015
                            and
      LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.257 & 281 of 2014

Between: (L.A.A.S.No.368 of 2015)
   1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION,
      TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL.
                                           ...APPELLANT
                          AND
   1. BOLLEDDULA MAHANANDI PATHI, S/o.Late Mahanandi, R/o
      Thimmkapuram (V) Mahanandi (M).
                                           ...RESPONDENT

IA NO: 1 OF 2013 (LAASMP 553 OF 2013)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 140 days in presenting the above appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 09-07 09 07-2012 in OP.No.111/2011 on the file of II Additional senior Civil Judge, Nandyal and pass.

IA NO: 1 OF 2015 (LAASMP 561 OF 2015)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 695 day days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of respondent ie., Sri Bolleddula Mahanandi Pathi

IA NO: 2 OF 2015 (LAASMP 562 OF 2015)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court Co may

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

be pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of Respondent ie., Sri Bolleddula Mahanandi Pathi

IA NO: 3 OF 2015 (LAASMP 563 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring on record the proposed respondents namely 1. B.Anjaneyulu S/o. Late Bolleddula Mahanandi Pathi aged 36 years 2. B.Ramanjaneyulu S/o. Late Bolleddula Mahanandi Pathi Aged 27years 3. B.Anjanamma D/o. Late Bolleddula Mahanandi Pathi aged 32 years as the legal representatives of the sole Respondent ie., Sri Bolleddula Mahanandi Pathi as Respondents 2 to 4 in the above Appeal

IA NO: 1 OF 2016 (LAASMP 560 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings including execution in OP No.111/2011 dated 09.07.2012 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the above appeal

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI

2. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J)

The present batch of appeals arise out of a common order dated

09.7.2012 in L.A.O.P. No.161 of 2011 and batch on the file of the Court of

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

2. Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for the

appellant. Also heard Smt.B.Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the

respondents, who appeared through online.

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

3. For the purpose of excavation of major distributor from KMs 0.000

to 2.800 in Block No.10 under Telugu Ganga Project, an extent of

Acs.4.03 cents in various survey numbers of Bukkavaram Village was

acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 15.11.2003 issued under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as

the 'Act'. The advance possession of the lands was taken on 06.5.2002.

The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed Award

No.8 of 2004-2005 granting compensation of Rs.45,000/- per acre.

Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference under Section 18

of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The learned

Reference Court answered the reference by fixing compensation at

Rs.2,08,000/- per acre, apart from awarding statutory benefits.

4. The learned Government Pleader inter alia contends that the Land

Acquisition Officer had considered as many as 112 sale transactions

during the course of Award proceedings and fixed the compensation at

Rs.45,000/- per acre, which is just and reasonable. He submits that, in

fact, the Land Acquisition Officer inspected the lands in question, which

are dry lands with red soil, determined the compensation at Rs.42,000/-

per acre and added Rs.3,000/- per acre for time lag. He further submits

that the learned Reference Court by taking into consideration the

common order dated 19.11.1992 passed by the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Appeal No.3184 of 1992 and batch and also

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

considering the submission made on behalf of the claimants that the

lands in question and the lands, which are subject matter of the Appeal

No.3184 of 1992 were similar in nature, had erroneously enhanced the

compensation to Rs.2,08,000/- per acre. He submits that the learned

Reference Court went wrong in fixing the compensation though the

subject matter lands are far away from the lands, which were acquired on

the earlier occasion and the potentiality of the same is not similar. He

also contends that even the nature of the lands in the same Village also

varies from one place to the other. Be that as it may, he also contends

that the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking the escalation of

market value at 12% per annum, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v. Union of India1. It is his

submission that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the

present acquisition and at any rate it is not a thumb rule to take into

consideration 12% escalation of the market value in each and every case.

Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader

emphatically submits that the fixation of compensation by the Reference

Court is on higher side, amounts to enhancement on enhancement and

warrants interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/claimants sought to sustain the orders of the Reference

(2004) 10 SCC 627

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

Court by contending that the learned Reference Court had taken into

consideration all the relevant factors and rightly fixed the compensation in

respect of the subject matter lands. She submits that the evidence on

record would to go show that the Ex.B.1 lands and the subject matter

lands are similar in nature as to potentiality and market value. She also

submits that the learned Reference Court had rightly relied on the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Dass vs. Himachal

Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority 2 and it is settled

law that while fixing the market value, when there are no sales in the

concerned Village where the lands are situated, the market value of the

lands in the adjoining Villages or the Award in respect of the same can be

taken into consideration for fixing the market value. Making the said

submissions, the learned counsel contends that there are no merits much

less valid grounds in the present appeals and seeks dismissal of the

same.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that

arises for consideration in this batch of appeals is as to whether the order

of the Reference Court warrants interference in the facts and

circumstances of the case?

2010 (1) ALT 13 (SC)

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

8. Before answering the point, it is to be noted that in the Reference

Court, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Ex.B1

Certified copy of the judgment in Appeal No.3184 of 1992 and batch on

the file of Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 19.11.1992 and Ex.B.2

Certified copy of Mahanandi Mandal (Thimmapuram Head Quarters)

Revenue map were marked. Ex.A.1 Copy of Award No.8/2004-2005

dated 15.3.2005 was marked with consent. No oral evidence was

adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer.

9. R.W.1 in his evidence had categorically deposed that the lands

acquired for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project which are situated in

Gopavaram, Nandipalle, Seetharamapuram and Bukkapuram are all

connected with Telugu Ganga canal and are similar in fertility, cropping

pattern and market value. He has also deposed that the distance

between the lands in Thimmapuram Village which were subject matter of

Appeal No.3184 of 1992 & batch and the lands under acquisition in the

present batch of appeals is only 2 KMs and they are similar in potentiality,

cropping pattern and market value. In respect of the lands in

Thimmapuram Village which are subject matter of Appeal No.3184 of

1992, it is not in dispute that the same were acquired in the year 1985 for

Telugu Ganga Project and the Hon'ble High Court fixed the market value

at Rs.65,000/- per acre. In so far as R.W.2 is concerned, he corroborated

the evidence of RW1 that Thimmapuram, Bukkapuram, Abbapuram, etc.,

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

are adjoining villages and in the cross-examination categorically asserted

that the subject matter lands are rich lands and they are raising banana,

turmeric and also paddy.

10. The learned Reference Court by taking into consideration the

evidence on record more particularly Ex.B.1 i.e., the order of the High

Court fixing the compensation at Rs.65,000/- per acre, in respect of the

lands acquired earlier, which were situate in the neighboring

Thimmapuram Village, felt it appropriate to fix the compensation at

Rs.65,000/- per acre in respect of the subject matter lands. In fact, it had

also relied on Ex.B.2, which supports contention of the

respondents/claimants that the lands in question and the lands which

were acquired in the year 1985 are situate in the adjoining Villages. The

learned Reference Court by relying on the decision in Charan Dass

(supra) had opined that the Awards passed in respect of the lands in the

same Village or neighbouring Villages can be accepted as valid, more

particularly as there are no comparable sales in respect of the subject

matter Village, even as per the observation of the LAO. Such an

approach of the learned Reference Court is based on well settled legal

position. In G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel3, inter

alia, held that instances of sale of similar lands situated in the same

(2005) 6 SCC 454

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

village or neighbouring villages can be taken for determination of the

market value. Be that as it may.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned

Reference Court went wrong in taking the escalation of market value at

12% per annum in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Om Prakash v. Union of India4, in the facts of the present case. We are

not inclined to accept the same. While the acquisition of lands in

Thimmapuram Village was in the year 1985, Section 4(1) Notification in

respect of the land under acquisition was issued in the year 2003. Thus,

there is time gap of more than 18 years as observed by the learned

Reference Court. In Om Prakash case referred to supra, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the

High Court of Delhi. While working out fair market value of the subject

matter lands in question on the basis of Rs.16,750/- per bigha as on

30.10.1963, the High Court keeping in view that in several judgments of

the Apex Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e., 6% p.a from

1959 to 1965, 10% p.a from 1996 to 1993 and @ 12% p.a. from 1975

onwards had been considered to be reasonable, adopted escalation of

market value @ 12% p.a and the same was upheld. In the present case,

undisputedly there is increased potentiality of the land by virtue of Telugu

Ganga Project. This Court see no illegality in the order of the Reference

(2004) 10 SCC 627

LAAS_368_2015 & LAAS_257_281_2014

Court in following the said decision, in respect of the lands acquired in the

year 2003. At any rate, the contention of the learned Government Pleader

that the escalation at 12% by the Reference Court in respect of the

subject matter lands amounts to "enhancement on enhancement" cannot

be appreciated in the light of the fact that there is always trend of

increase in the land prices more particularly in respect of the lands of this

nature.

12. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that

the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court was based on

the material on record, supported by cogent reasons, not on higher side

and warrants no interference by this Court. Point for consideration is

therefore answered against the appellants.

13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, these appeals are

dismissed. No order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions

shall stand closed.

____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J

______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J October 17, 2024 vasu