Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Spl Deputy Collector / Land ... vs Alle Naga Pullamma on 12 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010001872011
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
L.A.A.S. Nos.122, 123, 124, 126, 155 AND 211 OF 2011
Between:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, T.G.P. NANDYAL.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. CHINTHALA NAGABUSANNA, S/o Pedda Obulesu R/o
Somayazulapalli Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.
...RESPONDENT
IA NO: 2 OF 2011(LAASMP 636 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.
LAAS_122_2011_batch
The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J)
Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 06.8.2010 of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in Original Petition Nos.419, 421,
420, 418, 417 and 415 of 2009 enhancing the compensation from
Rs.10,500/- to Rs.32,000/- per acre, the present appeals have been
preferred.
2. For excavation of I-L Minor of Singavaram Major Distributory Canal
from KM 3.000 to 4.900 KM in Block No.6 of Telugu Ganga Project, a
Gazette Notification dated 03.10.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of total extent of Acs.8.69
cents situated in various survey numbers of Ernapadu Village, Bandi
Atmakur Mandal. The Draft Notification was published on 18.10.1996
and after issuing Draft Declaration, Award enquiry was conducted on
08.12.2001 and 27.12.2001. Subsequently, Award No.16 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 respectivel; 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
LAAS_122_2011_batch
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 to 4
on their behalf and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. The Referring Officer had
not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. Ex.A.1, copy of the
Award No.16 of 2001 dated 31.12.2001 was marked with consent.
5. While deciding the question as to whether the Award No.16/2001
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.
Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation of the lands from
Rs.10,500/- to Rs.32,000/- per acre, State filed these appeals.
6. Smt.A.Jayanthi, 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, is without any valid
basis and no cogent reasons were assigned for adding the said amount
of Rs.2,100/-. She 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
LAAS_122_2011_batch
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, she 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, she 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 Peddadevalapuram Village, as per the evidence adduced by the
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.5
i.e., common order in O.P.No.5 of 2004, dated 30.10.2004 in respect of
the lands acquired under Draft Notification dated 24.4.1990 situate in
various Villages along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal,
LAAS_122_2011_batch
wherein it was opined that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded
insufficient compensation and enhanced the same, explained 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
pertaining to Award No.30/1991-92 dated 25.3.1991, wherein the
compensation fixed at Rs.10,500/- per Acre in respect of rain-fed dry
lands of Peddadevalapuram Village were enhanced to Rs.18,000/- per
acre. The learned Reference Court had also considered the aspect that
all these Villages are along with alignment of Telugu Ganga Project Canal
and comparatively proximate to each other.
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/-.
Though the learned Government Pleader had sought to impress upon this
Court that the amount enhanced 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. The learned
Reference Court had taken note that the lands acquired from the
respondents/claimants are irrigated dry lands whereas the lands, which
are the subject matter of Ex.B.5 are rain-fed dry lands for which the
compensation was enhanced from Rs.10,500/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre.
Therefore, this Court feels that adding differential amount of Rs.2,100/- in
respect of irrigated dry lands is not unreasonable.
LAAS_122_2011_batch
10. 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 that the lands are irrigated dry lands.
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 India1,
relied on by the learned Reference Court 12% cannot be viewed as
without any basis or unreasonable.
11. 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.
12. 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
September 12, 2024
vasu
(2004) 10 SCC 627
