APHC010547222013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3495]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 229/2013 Between:

The Revenue Divisional Officer ...APPELLANT AND Golla Rama Subbamma ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao)

1. The Land Acquisition Appeal Suit arose out of the Common Order, dated 11.12.2012, passed in LAOP.Nos.60 of 2011 and batch on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandhyal (hereinafter referred to as "Reference Court") whereby the compensation for the land acquired was enhanced from Rs.23,700/- to Rs.81,000/- per Acre.

2. For convenience, the Parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their ranking in the Reference Court.

3. The Government has issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 16.05.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the lands' market value at Rs.23,700/- per acre vide Award No.3/1998-99 dated 04.05.1998.

4. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in Award No.3/1998-99 dated 04.05.1998, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, several Land Owners submitted references under Section 18 of the Act. This reference was adjudicated by the Common Order dated 11.12.2012 in leading LAOP.No.62 of 2011 and batch before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.23,700/- to Rs.81,000/- per Acre.

5. Aggrieved by this common order in LAOP No.60 of 2011, the Appellant/Referring Officer filed the present First Appeal.

6. Briefly stated facts of the present appeal for referring to matters by the Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act are as follows:

(a) The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, acquired 18.97 acres of land across various survey numbers in Tangatur Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, from the Claimants for the construction of an S.S. Tank and Headworks under the C.P.W.S. Scheme in Award No.3/1998-99, dated 04.05.1998, following the issuance of a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

(b) To determine the actual market value of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer reviewed the sale statistics of land registered in Tangatur Village over the past three years from the last date of Notification. Among 91 sales during this period, Item Nos. 4, 6, 35, 48, 62, 87, and 88 were identified as significant sales. Notably, in Survey No. 284/2, an extent of 0.99 acres was sold for Rs. 23,400/-, which results in a rate of Rs. 23,636/- per acre. Hence, the sale in Survey No. 284/2 is reasonable for determining the market value of the acquired lands, considering factors like fertility, cropping pattern, and maintenance. Consequently, the market value was fixed at Rs. 23,700/- per acre, with a 12% additional market value and a 30% solatium. However, the claimants accepted this compensation under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for compensation enhancement.

7. In their respective OPs, the claimants argued that the compensation set by the LAO was inadequate, unjustified, and failed to adhere to the principles outlined in Section 23 of the Act. They claimed that the LAO did not consider the potential of the acquired lands, comparable sales, or apply individual discretion in determining the compensation. The claimants emphasized that the compensation amount was too low, and no clear principles were followed in fixing the market value. As agriculturists who solely relied on the income from the acquired lands, the claimants highlighte