Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Spl Deputy Collector La, Srbc, ... vs Nattala Ramanjaneyulu, Banaganapalle ... on 12 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010173232009
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
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 82 of 2009 and Cross Objections in
I.A.No.1 of 2017;
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 141 of 2009;
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 142 of 2009 and Cross Objections
in I.A.No.5 of 2017
&
LAND ACQUISITION
CQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 200 of 2009 and Cross Objections
in I.A.No.2 of 2017
LAAS No.142 of 2009
Between:
The Spl Dy Collector (LA),
), S
SRBC, Nandyal. ...APPELLANT
AND
P.Pedda Pullanna & Another ...RESPONDENTS
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. HARIJA AKKINENI
The Court made the following Common Judgment:
Heard Smt.A.Jayanathi, learned Government Pleader for the appellants.
Also heard Mr.Upendra, learned counsel representing the respondents / Cross
objectors.
2. Aggrieved by the Common Order dated 30.08.2008 in LAOP No.384 of
2003 & batch on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nandyal, the present appeals have been preferred.
3. For the purpose of excavation of major canal in 9 th block of Srisailam
Right Bank Canal (SRBC), a Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894(for short 'the Act') for acquisition of land to an extent of
Ac.20.32 cents in different survey numbers of Banaganapalle Village was
issued on 17.04.1998. The Draft Declaration was published in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette on 30.04.1998. In the enquiry conducted by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the respondents / claimants participated. The Land
Acquisition Officer classified the lands under acquisition into two categories
i.e., Category 1 - Dry lands fed with rain water and Category 2 - Dry lands
having irrigation potentialities and fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- and
Rs.43,000/- respectively. The respondents / claimants dissatisfied with the
said fixation, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, seeking
enhancement.
4. Before the Reference Court, the claimant in O.P.No.384 of 2003 got
himself examined as R.W.1 apart from the Mandal Surveyor of Banaganapalle
and the Advocate Commissioner as R.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. R.Ws.4 and 5
were also examined on behalf of the claimants / respondents and Exs.B1 to
B5 were marked apart from Exs.X1, X2, C1 to C3. No witnesses were
examined on behalf of the Referring Officer, Ex.A1-Sketch Plan and Ex.A2-
Copy of the Award No.12 of 1999 dated 18.08.1999 were marked with
consent.
5. Learned Reference Court while formulating a point as to Whether the
Award passed under Ex.A2 reflects the true market value of the acquired land,
considered the material on record and enhanced compensation to
Rs.2,97,500/- per acre. While, it is contention of the learned Government
Pleader that the said fixation is highly excessive, the learned counsel for the
respondents-claimants / cross objectors argues that the acquired lands are
more valuable and the claimants are entitled to compensation @
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.
6. In elaboration, the learned Government Pleader contends that the Land
Acquisition Officer, after duly considering as many as 38 sale transactions,
had fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre for the dry lands and
Rs.43,000/- for irrigated dry lands, which is just and reasonable. She
contends that the learned Reference Court, without appreciating the matter in
a proper prospective and overlooking the crucial aspect that the respondents
claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer,
grossly erred in enhancing the compensation in respect of both the categories
of lands to Rs.2,97,500/-. She contends that the reliance placed by the
Reference Court on Ex.A2 i.e., Award No.12 of 1999 dated 18.08.1999 is
wholly misconceived and the lands under the said Award are far away from
the subject matter lands and do not reflect the correct value. She submits that
the subject matter lands are agricultural lands situated in an interior place and
the same cannot be compared with the other lands, which were converted into
house sites. Referring to the evidence, the learned Government Pleader
submits that even as per the witnesses i.e., R.W.1, R.W.2 and R.W.3, who
were examined on behalf of the claimants, the subject matter lands are
agricultural lands, whereas the Exs.B2 and B4 are pertaining to house sites.
Contending that the enhancement of compensation uniformly in respect of
both categories of lands is highly excessive, that the Order under challenge is
liable to be interfered with and that the respondents / claimants are not entitled
for any further compensation, she prays for allowing the Appeals and
dismissal of the Cross Objections.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimants submits that as the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was
on a lower side, the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre
before the Reference Court. He submits that despite ample evidence on
record, the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation only to
Rs.2,97,500/- instead of enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and to
the extent, the order of the Reference Court is adverse to the respondents /
claimants, they filed the Cross Objections. Making the said submissions, the
learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Appeals filed by the State and allow
the Cross Objections.
8. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for
consideration by this Court is Whether the enhancement of compensation by
the Reference Court is excessive, warrants interference or the claimants are
entitled for further enhancement?
9. Insofar as the contentions advanced by the learned Government
Pleader with regard to enhancement of compensation uniformly in respect of
both the categories of lands, it may be pertinent to mention that the learned
Reference Court had taken into consideration Ex.A1-Field Sketch and arrived
at a conclusion that the lands of the respondents / claimants in Survey Nos.13
& 16 lie towards the East of Banaganapalle Town, whereas lands in
Sy.Nos.31 & 24 lie towards North of Banaganapalle and the lands in Survey
Nos.13 & 16 are more or less equidistant from Banaganapalle Town Proper.
The learned Reference Court further taken note of the evidence adduced on
behalf of the respondents / claimants that the distance between the
Banaganapalle Town and the acquired land is less than 1 kilo meter or at best
1 ½ kilo meters, but not 5 kilo meters as suggested in the cross examination,
that the acquired land is situated near the boundary line of Banaganapalle and
Mettupalli and relied on Exs.B4 and B5 for enhancing the compensation. In
respect of acquisition of lands situated in Banaganapalle Revenue Village vide
Award No.25/91-92 dated 31.03.1992, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the
compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre in respect of the dry lands and
Rs.25,000/- per acre in respect of dry lands with irrigation facility. On
reference, vide Orders dated 15.04.2004 in O.P.No.134 of 1993 (Ex.B4), the
compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,53,800/- and Rs.1,58,800/- per acre for
dry lands and dry lands having irrigation facility respectively. It would further
appear that on Appeal, vide Orders 15.06.2007 in A.S.No.3370 of
2004(Ex.B5), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh enhanced the
compensation regardless of categories of lands to Rs.2,50,000/-, treating the
enhancement of compensation in respect of the lands in Banaganapalle
Village as the benchmark to fix the market value of the lands in the vicinity.
Taking into account that the subject matter lands have been surrounded by
agricultural lands, whereas the lands which are subject matter of the Ex.B4
are dry lands, the learned Reference Court, felt it appropriate to scale on the
value of land in question by reducing 30% from the benchmark value of
Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and worked it out to Rs.1,75,000/- per acre. Therefore,
the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the said fixation is
without any valid basis, cannot be accepted. No doubt, it appears that the
claimants sought for compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- before the Land
Acquisition Officer, but if they are entitled to more compensation, with
reference to the material available on record, this Court see no reason to
deny the same.
10. In Narendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1, it
was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts are not
precluded from awarding a higher compensation than claimed amount.
Reference was also made to the decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of
(2017) 9 SCC 426
Haryana2, wherein it was held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and
fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other
relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the landowner and there is
no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the
Court and the Courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has
been claimed by the landowners / applicants in their application before it.
11. Further, the learned Reference Court added value appreciation of 10%
per acre taking into consideration the time gap of 7 years four months
between the acquisition of lands situated in Banaganapalle Village under
Award No.25/91-92 dated 31.03.1992 and the subject matter lands vide
Award dated 18.08.1999, the same cannot be found fault with, more
particularly in view of the location of the acquired land from Banaganapalle
Town.
12. The learned Reference Court assigned cogent reasons and the
enhancement of compensation is in tune with decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Om Prakash (dead) by Lrs. and Others v. Union of India
and another3.
13. Though the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants sought to
impress upon that they are entitled for more compensation, having considered
the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the enhancement of
compensation to Rs.2,97,500/- per acre is just, reasonable and warrants no
further enhancement.
(2016) 4 SCC 544
(2004) 10 SCC 627
14. For the conclusions arrived at supra, the Order under challenge
contains valid reasons and does not call for interference by this Court.
15. Accordingly, the Appeals as well as the Cross Objections are
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending
applications shall stand closed.
___________________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_____________________________
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date: 12.09.2024
BLV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 82 of 2009 and Cross Objections in
I.A.No.1 of 2017;
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 141 of 2009;
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 142 of 2009 and Cross Objections
&
LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL No: 200 of 2009 and Cross Objections
(Per Ninala Jayasurya, J)
12th day of September, 2024
BLV
