The court established that compensation for acquired land must reflect market value, considering relevant sale transactions, time gaps, and necessary deductions, reaffirming the principle that claimants bear the burden of proof.

Judgment :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the Common Order dated 27.09.2006 in L.A.O.P No.290, 291, 292, 293, 294 and 295 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judtge, Nandyal.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent/claimant in the O.P No.294 of 2000.

3. Heard Mr.M.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S Bala Mohan Rao, learned Government Pleader for appeals. Perused the material on record.

4. For the purpose of borrow area for C.N.S. soils, the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, SRBC, Nandyal, acquired lands of the appellant and others of an extent of Ac.28.66 cents in Survey Nos.218 and 219 situated in Thammarajupalle village.

5. Section 4 (1) Notification under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the A.P.Gazette on 15.03.1999 and a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published simultaneously. After conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.22/98-99 dated 29.03.1999. Though the appellant/claimant claimed compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer after taking sale statistics of 19 transactions, fixed the compensation of the subject matter lands @ Rs.43,000/- per acre. The appellant/claimant received the compensation under protest and invoked Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation.

6. Before the Reference Court, it was pleaded that the claimant/appellant was raising crops like ground nut, jowar, chilies etc; and deriving annual income ranging from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.35,000/-, that Thammarajupalle is a fast developing village and abutting the National Highway road, the lands are very fertile and having high potentiality and prayed for enhancement of compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.

7. In support of his claim, the appellant/claimant examined R.W.1 (claimant herein) and R.W.2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2 i.e., Copies of the Registered Sale Deeds dated 14.09.1994 and 27.01.1992 respectively. On behalf of the Referring Officer, P.W.1 was examined and copy of the Award dated 29.03.1999 was marked as Ex.A1.

8. The learned Reference Court, after considering the matter, enhanced the market value from Rs.43,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that the order of the Reference Court to the extent of not enhancing the compensation as sought for is not sustainable. He submits that the subject matter land was acquired pursuant to Sec.4 (1) Notification dated 15.03.1999 and though ample material is available i.e., Exs.B1 and B2 which can be taken as basis for determination of just and reasonable compensation, the same were not taken into consideration. He submits that though there may be a justification for discarding Ex.B1-Sale Deed on the premise that the same pertains to Panyam village, the learned Reference Court was not right in not taking into consideration Ex.B2 which is a sale transaction in respect of the land situated in the same village on the ground that it is in respect of small extent of land. With regard to the observations of the learned Reference Court that no documents are filed to show that the appellant/claimant is deriving income of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- from the crops raised by him, he submits that the appellant is a poor farmer and he is not expected to file any documents with regard to the income, deriving from the crops raised by him .

10. Drawing the attention of this Court to Para No.13 of the order under challenge, the learned counsel submits that in the light of the evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant which remained unshaken, the learned Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,87,496/- per acre though Rs.1,00,000/- was sought for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in 1) Horrmal (deceased) through his Lrs., and others v. State of Haryana & others, 2024 INSC 797