The Special Deputy Collector vs Boya Nadipi Kottoor
2024 Latest Caselaw 9429 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Special Deputy Collector vs Boya Nadipi Kottoor on 17 October, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

APHC010337742014
                   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

                   L.A.A.S. Nos.151, 181, 222, 274 OF 2014
                                     AND
                           L.A.A.S. No.191 of 2015

Between: (L.A.A.S. No.151 of 2014)

   1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACUISITION,
      TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL.
                                                 ...APPELLANT
                                    AND
   1.
      BOYA NADIPI KOTTOOR, S/o. Boya Subbanna, R/o Somayajula
      pilla (V), Bandi Atmakur (M) Kurnool.
                                              ...RESPONDENT

IA NO: 1 OF 2013 (LAASMP 563 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--2012 on OP.No.582/2009 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal and pass.

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GP FOR APPEALS

Counsel for the Respondent: ---

LAAS_151_2014_batch

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

Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 09.7.2012 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in Original Petition Nos.577, 578, 582, 583 and 586 of 2009 enhancing the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands, the State has preferred the present appeals.

2. For excavation of I-L Minor Singavaram Major Distributory Canal from KM 1.700 to 3.000 KM in Block No.6 of Telugu Ganga Project, a Gazette Notification dated 15.02.1996 was issued for acquisition of total extent of Acs.8.95 cents situated in various survey numbers of Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal. The Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 06.9.1996 and after issuing Draft Declaration, Award enquiry was conducted on 08.12.2001 and 27.12.2001. Subsequently, Award No.2 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 (Category-I) and dry lands irrigated with water drawn from bore-wells (Category-II), fixed the market value at Rs.10,500/- and Rs.12,000/- per acre respectively; while allowing the other benefits of solatium, additional market value etc.

3. 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 at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, by referring the matter to the Civil Court.

4. Before the Reference Court, the claimants examined R.Ws.1 & 2 on their behalf and got marked Exs.B.1 & B.2. The Referring Officer had not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Ex.A.1, copy of the Award No.2 of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was marked with consent.

LAAS_151_2014_batch

5. While deciding the question as to whether the Award No.2/2001 dated 31.12.2001 does not adequately compensate the claimants/ respondents for the loss of their lands, the learned Reference Court, after considering the material on record, enhanced the market value of the category-I lands from Rs.10,500/- to Rs.32,000/- per acre and category-II lands from Rs.12000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre.

6. Mr.T.S. Rayalu, learned Government Pleader, assailing the said order, inter alia contends that the learned Reference Court without any valid basis enhanced the compensation and the same is not sustainable. It is her contention that the differential amount of Rs.2,100/-, which is added to the value of the land at Rs.18,000/- per acre in respect of category-II is without any valid basis and reasons assigned for adding the said amount of Rs.2,100/- are not tenable. 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 sustainable and no reasons much less cogent reasons were assigned for adopting 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, taking the escalation of prices into account, 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.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record. It is pertinent 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 Chinadevalapuram Village, etc., as per the evidence adduced by the

LAAS_151_2014_batch

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 the said Village and they are similar in nature with regard to its potentiality and market value.

8. Be that as it may. The learned Reference Court referring to Ex.B.2 i.e., common order in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2004 & batch, dated 30.10.2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in respect of the lands acquired under Draft Notification dated 24.4.1990 situate in Peddadevalapuram Village 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, examined the matter as to whether the present claimants are entitled for enhancement on similar lines. The learned Reference Court in the said O.P., after due consideration of the material on record, enhanced compensation fixed by the LAO at Rs.10,500/- per Acre in respect of rain- fed dry lands of Peddadevalapuram Village to Rs.18,000/- per acre. In respect of the subject matter lands, the learned Reference Court had considered the aspect that all these Villages are along with the alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal and comparatively proximate to each other. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bal Ram1, the Reference Court opining that when the purpose of acquisition is same and acquired lands are similar in all respects, it would be unfair to make discrimination between the land owners by paying more compensation to some and less compensation to the others.

9. In the light of the material available before it, the learned Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.32,000/- from Rs.10,500/- and Rs.36,000/- from Rs.12,000/- per acre.

AIR 2004 SC 3981

LAAS_151_2014_batch

10. Though the learned Government Pleader had sought to impress upon this Court that the amount enhanced is without any valid basis and no reasons assigned with regard to the differential amount of Rs.2,100/- are not tenable, we are not inclined to appreciate these contentions. The learned Reference Court had taken note that the category-I lands acquired from the respondents/claimants are rain-fed dry lands and keeping in view the compensation fixed under Ex.B.2 for rain-fed dry lands at Rs.18,000/- per acre, fixed the compensation for category-I lands in question @ Rs.18,000/- per acre. As the category-II lands are dry lands irrigated by water from borewell, the Reference Court deemed it appropriate to add Rs.2,100/-, obviously keeping in view the said aspect Therefore, this Court feels that adding differential amount of Rs.2,100/- in respect of irrigated dry lands is not unreasonable.

11. 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 aid to the appellants herein. In the present case, the claimants adduced evidence which was thoroughly appreciated by the learned Reference Court. It had also taken into consideration, the time gap of 6 years 3 months between Section 4(1) Notification issued under Ex.B.2 and Ex.A.1. Though the learned counsel contended that at best, 10% appreciation of market value could have been taken, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs v. Union of India 2 , relied on by the learned Reference Court, value appreciation @ 12% p.a. cannot be viewed as without any basis or unreasonable.

(2004) 10 SCC 627

LAAS_151_2014_batch

12. 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, reasonable and warrants no interference.

13. 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 October 17, 2024 vasu