2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22704

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR – Appellant
Versus
NALLAVADLA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY & 361 OTHERS – Respondent
LAAS 65/2015

In land acquisition appeals, the State cannot seek remand to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without showing it was unavailable with due diligence at trial. Compensation enhancement must be based on evidence; a 100% enhancement was just where the LAO's valuation lacked support.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 6, 18 - Compensation for structures - Enhancement of market value - The Reference Court enhanced the market value of structures per sq. mtr. by 150% over and above the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) - The appellate court reduced enhancement to 100%, holding it to be just and reasonable - The court opined that mere marking of the Award (Ex.B1) in the absence of oral and documentary evidence supporting the fixation of market value by the LAO does not enure to the benefit of the State, relying on Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (1988 (3) SCC 751). (Paras 5, 30, 31, 33)

(B) Appeal - Scope of interference - An appellate court is not to substitute its view for that of the lower court unless the decision is perverse, illegal, or without any valid basis - In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the appellant (State), the court had no option but to look into the evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants. (Para 31)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 27 - Additional evidence in appeal - The court rejected the appellant's prayer for remand and consideration of additional evidence (estimates by the Engineering Wing of the Irrigation Department), as the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(aa) - The evidence was within the appellant's knowledge and could have been produced with due diligence before the Reference Court - Allowing such evidence would cause injustice to the claimants, who lost their property over 18 years ago. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
For the Kandaleru Project, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 01.05.2007, acquiring structures and wells of the respondents/claimants in Gundavolu Village, Rapur Mandal. The LAO passed Award No.2/2009-10, dated 18.05.2009, determining compensation. Aggrieved, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of the structures by 150% over the LAO's value. The State (appellant) appealed, arguing the enhancement was excessive and without basis, and sought to adduce additional evidence (estimates from the Irrigation Department) and remand the matter.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the State failed to justify its request for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The estimates it sought to produce were within its knowledge and could have been produced at the trial. Remand would cause further delay and injustice to the claimants. On the merits of compensation, the court noted the claimants’ evidence (PWs 1 to 3 and Ex.A1) showed the value could be 2-3 times more, but the LAO’s evidence was lacking. The court held that a 100% enhancement over the LAO’s value was just and reasonable, reducing it from the 150% awarded by the Reference Court. The court relied on the principle that the claimant must prove the claim, and in the absence of evidence from the State, the court must consider the claimants' evidence.

Issues: (1) Whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court was not just, reasonable, or excessive, and if the order was liable to be interfered with. (2) Whether a case was made out for remand to allow additional evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in land acquisition appeals, the State cannot belatedly produce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without establishing that it was not within its knowledge or could not be produced with due diligence at the trial. On compensation, where the LAO’s valuation is unsupported by evidence, the court may rely on the claimants’ evidence to determine just compensation, but the enhancement must be reasonable and based on the evidence on record. A 100% enhancement over the LAO’s value was deemed appropriate in this case.

Result: The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the enhancement of market value for structures from 150% to 100% over the value fixed by the LAO. The rest of the order under appeal was confirmed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications were closed.