Back
Assigned Lands Fight Ends: AP High Court Rejects Compensation Hike Bid
In a decisive ruling, the dismissed two appeals (AS Nos. 288 & 317 of 2013) on , upholding the trial court's rejection of higher compensation claims for resumed government-assigned lands. Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam ruled that plaintiffs cannot leverage post-possession market value certificates to inflate payouts, sticking firmly to -era valuations. Appellants Vempalli Khasim Saheb and Gundluru Peeramma challenged the adequacy of amounts paid by the , represented by Kadapa's District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer.
Pattas Granted, Then Resumed: A Decade-Long Saga
The dispute traces back to , when predecessors of appellants Vempalli Khasim Saheb and Gundluru Peeramma received DKT pattas for agricultural plots in Survey Nos. 846/1 and 846/2 near Kadapa. The assignees cultivated the lands, installing a borewell, and passed titles to the current plaintiffs, complete with passbooks. In , the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled the pattas under resumption orders (Ref. B/108/) to allocate housing sites for weaker sections.
Plaintiffs fought back through appeals and writs: - : in WP No. 9989. - Joint Collector modified resumption, mandating market value under plus 30% . - : High Court in WP No. 1409/1049 upheld it, adding LA Act , additional compensation, and interest atop G.O.Ms.No.1307 . - Possession taken . - : WP No. 8009 dismissed, directing civil suits for grievances.
Suits OS Nos. 14 & 47 of 2010 sought Rs.600/sq.yd. (urban-like rates), citing nearby sales at Rs.300/sq.yd. Trial court dismissed in 2012; appeals followed.
Plaintiffs' High-Value Push vs. Government's Grounded Defense
Appellants' Pitch : Lands near urban Kadapa deserved Rs.600/sq.yd. based on -2011 sale deeds (Ex.A3, A5-A6), market value certificates (Ex.A1, A4, A12), and Sub-Registrar valuations. They invoked WP No.1409/1049's market value directive, citing Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka ((2025) 7 SCC 580) for possession-date valuation and local precedents like P. Mallaiah v. Govt. of AP (2006 (2) ALT 742) and LAO v. Mekala Pandu ( (2) ALD 451 (LB)) for assignee parity with owners.
Respondents' Counter : Compensation complied with G.O.Ms.No.1307 ( at market value + ) and WP directives: Rs.1.5 lakh/acre base (above nearby ring road Award No.22/-08 at Rs.1.2 lakh/acre), plus 30% , 12% additional value, 9-15% interest from possession. Plaintiffs' evidence? Irrelevant—Ex.A12 (2010 guidelines) post-dated events; sales were house sites in different survey numbers (e.g., Sy.No.858). No basis for urban sq.yd. rates on agricultural DKT lands.
Court's Timeline Scrutiny Seals the Verdict
The bench dissected evidence meticulously. Key: Resumption (), possession (), so certificates (Ex.A12, valid from ) were untimely. Ex.A12 listed house sites elsewhere, not these plots. Ring road award (, nearby) was a perfect exemplar at Rs.1.2 lakh/acre, bumped to 1.5 lakh/acre reasonably.
Precedents reinforced: Mekala Pandu (Full Bench) granted assignees full benefits, applied in the WP. Bernard Vaz allowed possession-date valuation—which was already used, favorably. No error in trial court's reliance on contemporaneous docs (Exs.B1-B5) over later ones.
As other reports note,
"Market Value Certificates Of Later Periods Can't Be Relied On To Enhance Land Acquisition Compensation,"
this aligns with the bench's logic: contemporaneous evidence trumps hindsight hikes.
Key Observations
"We are of the view that market value was not required to be determined based on the market value certificate Ex.A12 which came into existence with effect from , whereas in the case of the plaintiffs, such determination was to be made in the year ."(Para 21)
"The Award could certainly be relied and served as good exemplar. As per the said Award, the rate was Rs.1,20,000/- per acre and the Joint Collector has sanctioned ex gratia fixing the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre..."(Para 23)
"The determination of the compensation being in terms of the directions issued in W.P.No.1049 of ... no case for interference... is made out."(Para 27)
"The appeals lack merit and are dismissed. No order as to costs."(Para 31)
No Upside: Appeals Dismissed, Precedent Set
The High Court affirmed the trial decree, finding full compliance with WP No.1049/ and G.O.Ms.No.1307. Plaintiffs got , , extras, and interest—no more warranted. This curbs opportunistic claims using inflated later valuations, guiding future assigned-land resumptions toward timely, location-matched benchmarks. A win for fiscal restraint in public-purpose acquisitions.
