2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15295
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BATTU DEVANAND,A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acqusition officer – Appellant
Versus
B.Basheer – Respondent
LAAS 541/2016
APHC010389962016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3545]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 541/2016 Between:
1. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, ADONI ...APPELLANT AND
1. B BASHEER, S/o Late B.Mahaboob Sab D.No. 1/617, Bharper , Adoni.
...RESPONDENT to allow the above appeal and set aside the order and decree dt.28.02.20.13 in OP.No.16 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni.
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(LAASMP 904 OF 2016 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 to condone the delay of 1112 days inm filing the appeal and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2016(LAASMP 1370 OF 2016 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and decree passed in OP No.16/2009 dated 28.02.2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. K SITA RAM The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND &
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.541 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)
This appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment/decree in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 2009, dated 28.02.2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District.
2. The undisputed facts herein are that, for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the Adoni Municipality, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published by the District Collector, Kurnool for acquisition of the land admeasuring Ac.20.79 cents in Sy.No.216 A of Mandigiri Village of Adoni Mandal. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an enquiry fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimants received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming market value at Rs.35,00,000/- per acre.
3. The reference Court after considering the matter basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value at Rs.2,80,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
4. During the course of hearing of this appeal today, learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the appellant would submit that in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2016 has confirmed the order of the reference Court by judgment dated 26.06.2025. Learned counsel would submit that the lands acquired in the present appeal are similarly situated to the lands acquired in L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2016, which were acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections in Adoni Municipality, and are situated in the same town. 5. Considering the reasons stated in the judgment dated 26.06.2025 in L.A.A.S.No.50 of 2016 and the submission of the learned Government Pleader, in our considered view, the findings of the Coordinate Division Bench in the judgment stated (supra) have to be followed in the present case also, to maintain the judicial discipline. The relevant portion of the judgment stated (supra) extracted herein under:-
“10. As seen from the material on record, Exs.A1 and A2 were referred to atS.Nos.36 and 9 of the sale statistics. However, it would appear that the LandAcquisition Officer discarded the said transactions on the premise that theywere bit sales and were in developed area, far away from the land underacquisition. But Ex.A2 was in respect of Ac.1.17 cents and not a bit sale,wherein the land was sold for an amount of R