SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, T. Mallikarjuna Rao, JJ.
Yerrabolu Purushotham Reddy and others - Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer - Respondent
Land Acquisition Appeal Suit Nos: 681, 690, 693, 694, 695, 705, 708, 709, 733, 734, 735, 744, 745 and 759 of 2011
Decided On : 03-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Rathanga Pani Reddy
For the Respondent: A. Jayanthi

IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for acquired land must reflect its market value, determined by comparable sales and potentiality, as per the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 18, 23(1) - The court emphasized the necessity of determining market value based on comparable sales and potentiality of the land, ultimately enhancing compensation from Rs.3,90,000 to Rs.5,09,090 per acre.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves appeals against a Reference Court's order enhancing compensation for land acquired for a diversion road and bridge construction. The Land Acquisition Officer initially set the compensation at Rs.2,63,000 per acre, which was contested by landowners seeking higher compensation based on market value.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Reference Court failed to adequately consider comparable sales and the potential value of the land, leading to an inadequate compensation determination. The court emphasized the need for a proper assessment based on market conditions at the time of acquisition.

Issues: Whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court is lawful and adequate, and whether the orders of the Reference Court require interference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that market value must be determined based on comparable sales and the potential of the land, as established by previous Supreme Court rulings, and that the Reference Court's failure to do so constituted a manifest error of law.

Result: The appeals are partly allowed, and the market value of the land is fixed at Rs.5,09,090 per acre.

JUDGMENT :

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. These Land Acquisition Appeal Suits arise out of the Common Order, dated 22.02.2011, passed in O.P.Nos.260 of 2009 and batch and O.P.Nos.263 of 2009 and batch on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (hereinafter referred to as "Reference Court") whereby the compensation for the land acquired was enhanced from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per acre.

2. This batch of Appeals arises from the same land acquisition Notification dated 06.03.2007 for the land of villages Udumalpuram and Moolasagaram, Nandhyal, Kurnool District and involve common facts and questions; therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all these first Appeals have been heard together treating the L.A.A.S. No.681 of 2011 as the leading first Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their ranking in the Reference Court.

4. The Government has issued a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.2,63,000/- per Acre in respect of the lands vide Award No.3 of 2008 dated 20.02.2008.

5. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in Award No.3/2008 dated 20.02.2008, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, several Land Owners submitted references under Section 18 of the Act. These references were adjudicated by the Orders dated 22.02.2011, in leading O.P.No.260 of 2009 and batch and O.P.No.263 of 2009 and batch, before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.3,90,000/- per Acre. Aggrieved by these common orders, the Appellants/Claimants have filed the present First Appeals.

6. Briefly stated facts of the present Appeals for referring the matters by the Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O.) to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act are as follows:

    (a) The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition) in Nandyal acquired a total of 9.73 acres of land across various survey numbers in the villages of Moolasagaram and Udumalpuram, located within the Sub-Registration District of Nandyal and the Registration District of Kurnool. This land, owned and possessed by Claimants specified by the State Government, was declared necessary for the construction of a diversion road and a high-level bridge across the Kundu River, extending from K.M. ½ of the Nandyal to Atmakur road to intersect with NH 18 at KM 20/8, as published in the A.P. Gazette No. 07/K.N.L., Part-I, Extraordinary, dated 06.03.2007.

(b) The Land Acquisition Officer conducted a thorough inquiry into considering various circumstances and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published simultaneously. General notices, as required under Sections 9(1), 10, and 9(3) of the Act, were also issued. Following this inquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer issued an award (Award No. 3/2008) on 20.02.2008, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.2,63,000/- per Acre. To determine this market value, the Officer reviewed 108 sale transactions that occurred within the village limits of Moolasagaram and 85 transactions in Udumalpuram, all relating to dry lands within the three years preceding the Section 4(1) notification. However, the Claimants received the compensation under protest. They requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

7. The Claimants/Appellants filed their respective claim statements, and the claims of the Claimants are as follows:

    (a) The Award issued by the Land Acquisition Officer is unjust, improper, and not maintainable. The Referring Officer/L.A.O., and the Surveyor failed to inspect the acquired lands before passing the Award, a fact not acknowled

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top