Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Special Deputy Collector, vs M.Maddileti, on 12 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010134122011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3495]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.121 and 274 of 2011
Between: (L.A.A.S. No.121 of 2011)
1. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, T.G.P.,
Nandyal
...APPELLANT
AND
1. M Maddileti, S/o.Late Gurrappa, R/o. Ernapadu (V), Bandi Atmakur
Mandal, Kurnool District.
...RESPONDENT
Appeals against the Common Order and separate Decrees passed
in OP Nos.429 and 430 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Nandyal dt.6-8-2010.
IA NO: 2 OF 2011 (LAASMP 713 OF 2011)
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
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. ----
2
LAAS_121_274_2011
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Feeling aggrieved by the Common Order dated 06.08.2010 of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in Original Petition Nos.429 and
430 of 2009 enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,500/- to Rs.32,000/-
per acre, the State has preferred the present appeals.
2. For excavation of Ernapadu Major Distributory Canal from KM
4.300 to 5.984 KM in Block No.7 of Telugu Ganga Project, a Gazette
Notification dated 04.09.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of a total extent of Acs.12.96 cents
situated in various survey numbers of Ernapadu Village, Bandi Atmakur
Mandal. The Draft Notification was published in the news papers on
12.09.1996 and after issuance of Draft Declaration, Award enquiry was
conducted on 08.12.2001 and 27.12.2001. Subsequently, Award No.14
of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was passed. For the purpose of awarding
compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had classified the subject
matter lands into two categories i.e., Category No.I-Rain fed dry lands
and Category No.II-Dry lands having irrigation through sources like well,
bore wells and after examining as many as 180 registered sale
transactions fixed the market value at Rs.10,500/- and Rs.12,600/- per
acre respectively, while allowing the other benefits of solatium, additional
market value etc. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land
LAAS_121_274_2011
Acquisition Officer, the claimants received the compensation under
protest and sought for enhancement of the compensation of the market
value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, by referring the matter to the
Civil Court.
3. Before the Reference Court, the evidence of claimant in O.P.
No.429 of 2009 as R.W.1 was eschewed. The claimant in O.P No.430 of
2009 was examined as R.W.2 apart from R.Ws.3 to 5 and Exs.B.1 to B.5
were marked. The Referring Officer has not adduced any oral evidence.
Ex.A.1, copy of the Award No.14 of 2001 was marked with consent.
4. While deciding the question as to whether the Award No.14/2001
dated 31.12.2001 does not adequately compensate the claimants for the
loss of their lands, the learned Reference Court, after considering the
material on record, enhanced the market value. Aggrieved by
enhancement of compensation in respect of Category No.I Lands from
Rs.10,500/- to Rs.32,000/- per acre, these appeals have been filed.
5. Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader, assailing the said
enhancement, inter alia contends that the learned Reference Court
without any valid basis enhanced the compensation and the same is not
sustainable. It is his contention that the differential amount of Rs.2,100/-,
which is added to the value of the land at Rs.12,600/- per acre, is without
any valid basis and no cogent reasons were assigned for adding the said
LAAS_121_274_2011
amount of Rs.2,100/-. 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 tenable and no reasons much less
cogent reasons were assigned for fixing 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, escalation of prices may be taken at 10% and the 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.
6. 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 Peddadevalapuram Village, as per the evidence adduced by the
claimants, the market value was fixed at Rs.10,500/- per acre and on
reference, the same was enhanced to Rs.32,000/- per acre. The subject
lands are adjacent to Peddadevalapuram Village and they are similar in
nature with regard to its potentiality and market value.
LAAS_121_274_2011
7. Be that as it may. The learned Reference Court referring to Ex.B.5
i.e., common order in O.P.No.5 of 1994 in respect of the lands situate in
Peddadevalapuram Village situated along with alignment of Telugu
Ganga Project Canal, wherein it was opined that the Land Acquisition
Officer had awarded insufficient compensation and enhanced,
appreciated the matter as to whether the present claimants are entitled
for enhancement on similar lines. The learned Reference Court, took into
consideration Ex.B.5 dated 30.10.2004 in respect of the Award
No.30/1991-92 dated 25.3.1991, wherein the L.A.O fixed the
compensation at Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,600/- per acre in respect of
uncultivated rain-fed dry lands and cultivated rain-fed dry lands of
Peddadevalapuram Village and enhanced the same to Rs.17,400/- and
Rs.18,000/- per acre respectively. The learned Reference Court had also
considered the aspect that the subject matter lands are located along with
alignment of the Canal and the present village and other villages where
lands were acquired are comparatively proximate to each other.
8. The learned Reference Court on a due consideration of the matter
enhanced the compensation in respect of Category-I lands herein from
Rs.10,500/- to Rs.32,000/- relying on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Om Prakash (D) by L.Rs Vs. Union of India 1 .
Though the learned Government Pleader had sought to impress upon this
(2004) 10 SCC 627
LAAS_121_274_2011
Court that the amount as enhanced by the learned Reference Court is
without any valid basis and no reasons with regard to the differential
amount of Rs.2,100/- are assigned, we are not inclined to appreciate
these contentions, as the lands acquired from the respondents/claimants
are irrigated dry lands having irrigation sources like wells and bore-wells.
Whereas the lands, which are the subject matter of Ex.B.5 are rain-fed
dry lands and in respect of the same, compensation was enhanced from
Rs.10,600/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre. Therefore, this Court feels that
adding differential amount of Rs.2,100/- in respect of the lands in
question is not unreasonable.
9. 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 much aid to the appellant herein as. In the present case
the claimants adduced evidence and even as per the classification made
by the LAO, the subject matter lands are dry lands having Irrigation
sources and the appreciation of market value at 12% per annum, on the
basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as arrived at by the
learned Reference Court is legally valid and not on a higher side.
LAAS_121_274_2011
10. 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 and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications
shall stand closed.
_____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_______________________
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
September 12, 2024.
vasu
