Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Special Deputy Collector vs Himachal on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010141772014
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 Nos.145,, 252 & 356 of 2014
Between:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION,
TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. P SUBBAIAH, S/o Late Pedda Subaiah, R/o Thimmapuram Village,
Mahanandi Mandal.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant : G.P. FOR APPEALS
Counsel for the Respondent : BALLA RAVINDRANATH &
SAVITHRI DEVI
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.718 of 2009 and batch on the file of the Court of
II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.
2. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for the
appellant. Also heard
ard Smt.B.Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the
respondents, who appeared through online.
LAAS_145_252_356_2014
3. For the purpose of excavation of 1-R minor distributory from KMs
2.915 to 4.554 in Block No.10 under Telugu Ganga Project, an extent of
Acs.4.30 cents in various survey numbers of Bollavaram and Bukkavaram
Villages was acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 08.11.2003 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
10.5.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry,
passed Award No.15 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. She 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. She 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
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. She 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
LAAS_145_252_356_2014
the earlier occasion and the potentiality of the same is not similar. She
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, she 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 her
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 order of the Reference 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 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 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
(2004) 10 SCC 627
2010 (1) ALT 13 (SC)
LAAS_145_252_356_2014
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?
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 10.11.1992 and Ex.B.2
Certified copy of Mahanandi Mandal (Thimmapuram Head Quarters)
Revenue map were marked. Ex.A.1 Copy of Award No.15/2004-2005
dated 28.3.2005 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
Thimmapuram, Bukkapuram, Abbipuram and Bollavaram 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
LAAS_145_252_356_2014
at Rs.65,000/- per acre. In so far as R.W.2 is concerned, he corroborated
the evidence of RW1 that Thimmapuram, Bukkapuram, 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 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 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.
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
(2005) 6 SCC 454
LAAS_145_252_356_2014
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 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 2003. 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.
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.
(2004) 10 SCC 627
LAAS_145_252_356_2014
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
