2025:APHC:14768 APHC010581442014 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: 264/2014 Between:

The Special Deputy Collector [la] ...APPELLANT AND Katreddi Pakkir Reddy 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

28.01.2011 in O.P No.13 of 2006 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.11.19 cents of agricultural land situated in different survey numbers in Giddalaur village of Sanjamala mandal in Kurnool district Contd…

was acquired, pursuant to a Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) dated 09.04.2002, for the purpose of Giddalur XV Block of Srisailam Right Branch Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, based on an earlier Award No.54/2001-02 dated 30.03.2002, fixed the market value of the acquired lands i.e., @ Rs.36,000/- per acre for rain fed land and Rs.42,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands through bore well.

4. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the respondents/claimants while receiving compensation under protest, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, for compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands and @

Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for wet lands.

5. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondents/claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. However, a copy of the award No.11/2002-03 dated 07.06.2002 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 for dry lands and Rs.42,000/- per acre to Rs.90,000/- per acre for dry lands irrigated through bore wells.

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 Ex.A1 which is 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 Ex.A1. 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.

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 note that the lands in question are in proximity to the lands, which were acquired on the earlier occasion and rightly taken into consideration the orders passed in respect of the same vide Ex.A1 dated 01.03.1999. He submits that fixation of the market value by the learned Reference Court is just, reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal.

8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention that in so far classification of the lands are concerned, no dispute is raised by the respondents/claimants. Further, in support of their case, seeking enha