2025:APHC:9983 APHC010293862015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3495]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos:279, 209, 210, 218 and 308 of 2015 L.A.A.S No.279 of 2015 Between:

The Special Deputy Collector Cum Land Acquisition Officer ...APPELLANT AND K Prasad Kurnool District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. BALLA RAVINDRANATH & SAVITHRI DEVI The Court made the following Common Judgment: (per NJS,J)

The present batch of appeals arise out of a common order dated

30.08.2014 in L.A.O.P Nos.32, 83, 160, 163 and 164 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

2. Heard Mr. T S Rayulu, learned Government Pleader for the appellant. Also heard Smt. B Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared through online.

3. For the purpose of excavation of 9R Sub-minor Distributory in Block No.14 of Telugu Ganga Project, different extents of lands of the respondents in various survey numbers of Chennur Village were acquired, pursuant to a Notification dated 12.05.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.72 of 2005-06 granting compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court answered the reference by fixing compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, apart from awarding statutory benefits.

4. The learned Government Pleader inter alia contends that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered all the relevant factors during the course of Award proceedings and fixed the market value Rs.35,000/- per acre, which is just and reasonable. He submits that the fixation of market value by the Reference Court is without any valid basis, excessive and not sustainable. He submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in fixing the compensation on the basis of Ex.A1, Sale Deed dated 09.02.2004 in respect of lands situate in another village and far away from the lands under the present acquisition and potentiality of the same is not similar. He also contends that the nature of the lands in the same village varies from one place to the other. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader emphatically submits that the fixation of compensation by the Reference Court is on higher side, amounts to enhancement on enhancement and warrants interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the orders of the Reference Court by contending that the learned Reference Court had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and rightly fixed the compensation in respect of the subject matter lands. She submits that the evidence on record would establish that the subject matter lands are nearer to the land situate in the neighbouring village which was sold vide Ex.A1 dated 09.02.2004. She also submits that the learned Reference Court had rightly relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is settled law that while fixing the market value, when there are no sales in the concerned Village where the lands are situated, the market value of the lands in the adjoining villages or the Award in respect of the same can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel contends that there are no merits, much less, valid grounds in the present appeals and seeks dismissal of the same.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and the perused the material available on record.

7. On an appreciation of