2025:APHC:14769 APHC010743122015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3495]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 104/2015 Between:

The Special Deputy Collector ...APPELLANT AND B Ramachandra Reddy 24 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: (per NJS,J The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated

10.09.2009 in O.P No.52 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals, Mr. T S Rayulu and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

3. An extent of Ac.17.77 cents of agricultural land situate in Giddalaur village of Sanjamala mandal in Kurnool district was acquired, pursuant to a Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated Contd…

22.06.2000, for the purpose of Srisailam Right Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer, at the time of conducting award enquiry, classified the lands into five categories i.e., I) dry lands irrigated by rain fed water, II) dry lands irrigated by tank water, III) dry lands irrigated by own bore wells, IV) dry lands irrigated by others bore wells and V) dry lands kept waste but fit for cultivation. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired lands i.e., @ Rs.36,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-I, @ Rs.46,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-II, @ Rs.44,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-III, @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for the lands under Category-IV and @ Rs.32,000/- per acre for lands under Category-V.

4. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, and to grant compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, basing on the categorization of lands.

5. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondents/claimant Nos. 2 and 9 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and PWs.3 and 4 are independent witnesses. They got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. However, a copy of the award No.26/2001-02 dated 31.07.2001 was marked as Ex.B1. The learned Reference Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the market value from Rs.36,000/- per acre to Rs.85,000/- per acre in respect of Category-I lands, from Rs.46,000/- per acre to Rs.99,000/- per acre in respect of Category-II lands, from Rs.44,000/- per acre to Rs.95,000/- per acre in respect of Category-III lands, from Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre in respect of Category-IV and from Rs.32,000/- per acre to Rs.75,000/- per acre in respect of Category-V.

6. Assailing the said enhancement, the learned Government Pleader inter alia contends that the order of the learned Reference Court is not sustainable in law in as much as there is no basis for enhancing the compensation amounts. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred in relying on Exs.A2 and A4 which are in respect of the lands far away from the lands under acquisition. He also contends that large extent of lands were acquired, but the learned Reference Court went wrong in taking into consideration the value of small extents of lands which are subject matter of Exs.A2 and A4. He also submits that the learned Reference Court erred in taking into consideration the escalation without any valid basis, much less independent evidence. Making the said submissions, learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order under appeal.

7. Whereas, the learned counsel representing the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the order under challenge inter alia contending that the learned Reference Court had taken into consideration that th