Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Special Deputy Collector vs Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.146, 150 & 284 of 2014 and
541 of 2013
Dated 17.10.2024
L.A.A.S No.146 of 2014
Between:-
The Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquistion, Telugu Ganga Project.,
Nandyal, Kurnool .... Appellant
And
Dudekula Sayabanna .... Respondent
L.A.A.S No.150 of 2014
The Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquistion, Telugu Ganga Project.,
Nandyal, Kurnool .... Appellant
And
Palle Mangamma .... Respondent
L.A.A.S No.284 of 2014
Between:-
The Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquistion, Telugu Ganga Project.,
Nandyal, Kurnool .... Appellant
And
Ambati Eswara Reddy .... Respondent
L.A.A.S No.541 of 2013
Between:-
The Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquistion, Telugu Ganga Project.,
Nandyal, Kurnool .... Appellant
And
Palle Sudhakara Reddy .... Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : G.P for Appeals
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. Balla Ravindranath &
Savithri Devi
2
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
The present batch of appeals arise out of a common
order dated 09.07.2012 in L.A.O.P. No.922, 923, 924 and 925
of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Nandyal.
2. Heard Mr. T. S. Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for
the appellants. Also heard Smt. B. Savithri Devi, learned
counsel for the respondents, who appeared through online.
3. For the purpose of excavation of 9-R Sub-Minor
Distributory from KMs 0.000 to 1.575 in Block No.9 under
Telugu Ganga Project, an extent of Acs.1.94 cents in various
survey numbers of Bollavaram and Bukkapuram Village was
acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 29.01.1999 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 28.09.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer,
after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.29 of 2001-2002
dated 28.02.2002 and fixed compensation @ Rs.20,000/- 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.1,70,300/- 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 100
sale transactions during the course of Award enquiry and fixed
the compensation at Rs.20,000/- 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, before determining the compensation. He
further submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong
in 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 (Ex.B.1) and
the submission made on behalf of the claimants that the lands
in question and the lands, which are subject matter of
acquisition in Appeal No.3184 of 1992 were similar in nature
and committed an error in enhancing the compensation to
Rs.1,70,300/- per acre. He submits that the learned
Reference Court was not right in enhancing the compensation
though the subject matter lands are far away from the lands,
which were acquired on the earlier occasion and the
potentiality is not similar.
5. The learned counsel 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 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 case 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.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the orders of the
Reference Court by contending that the learned Reference
(2004) 10 SCC 627
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 the 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 Authority2 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.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
2010 (1) ALT 13 (SC)
8. 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?
9. 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.29/2001-2002
dated 28.02.2002 was marked with consent. No oral evidence
was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer.
10. R.W.1 in his evidence had categorically deposed that the
lands acquired for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project which
are situated in Thimmapuram, Abbipuram, Bollavaram and
Bukkapuram are all connected with Telugu Ganga canal and
are similar in nature, potentiality, 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. 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, Bollavaram, Abbipuram, etc.,
are adjoining villages and in the cross-examination
categorically asserted that the subject matter lands are fertile
lands and they are raising banana, turmeric, tobacco and also
paddy.
11. 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 @
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 on the basis of the
same, 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 village
or neighbouring villages can be taken for determination of the
market value. Be that as it may.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that
the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking the
escalation of market value @ 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
(2005) 6 SCC 454
(2004) 10 SCC 627
Thimmapuram Village was in the year 1985, Section 4(1)
Notification in respect of the land under acquisition was issued
in the year 1999. Thus, there is time gap of more than 13
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 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% p.a. from 1975
onwards was 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 Court in following the
said decision, in respect of the lands acquired in the year
1999. At any rate, the contention of the learned Government
Pleader that the escalation @ 12% p.a. adopted 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.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, these appeals are
dismissed. No order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous
petitions shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 17.10.2024
GVK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.146, 150 & 284 of 2014 and
541 of 2013
Date: 17.10.2024
GVK
