Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Revenue Divisional Officercumland … vs Boreddy Sivarami Reddy on 9 May, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010685182014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3495]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAAS NOs: 184; 178; 191; 221; 224; 373; 374; 375; 379; 380; 381;
382; 383; 384; 385 AND 393 OF 2014
LAAS No.184 of 2014
Between:
The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition ...APPELLANT
Officer, Kurnool
AND
Sri Manapati Sreeramulu ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. Mr.T.S.Rayulu, Government Pleader for Appeals
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Mr.C. Prakash Reddy
2The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J)
All these appeals arise out of a common order dated 10.07.2013 in
LAOP No.163 of 2012 and Batch, on the file of the Court of the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.
2) Heard Mr. T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals,
representing the appellant and Mr. C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondents – claimants.
3) The respondents herein are the claimants / land losers, whose
lands were acquired for the formation of a Minor Irrigation (MI) Tank
across Edduleru Vagu (Stream) near M. Lingapuram, Hamlet of
Gokavaram village of Kothapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. For the
purpose of formation of the said tank, G. Pulla Reddy Charitable Trust (for
short “the Trust”) agreed to bear the cost of the land to an extent of
Ac.489.41 cents, and purchased an extent of Ac.341.00 cents of land. In
so far as the lands of the respondents / claimants of an extent of Ac.33.96
cents in different survey numbers of Kothapalli village are concerned, they
are part of Section 4 (1) Notification dated 08.12.2011 issued under the
Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). The details of the extents of the
lands of the respondents / claimants along with the O.P. Numbers for
ready reference are tabulated as follows:
3
Sl. Name of the Claimant Extent of Land Survey Number OP No.
No.
01 B. Chandrasekhar Reddy 2.50+1.515+1.28=5.30 608/2, 548/2 and 163/12
696/2
02 M. Rangaswamy 1.11 608/4 157/12
03 Boreddy Siva Rami Reddy 2010 611/A1 158/12
04 M. Sreeramulu 0.81 611/B2/ 159/12
05 B. Kameswara Reddy 2.50+1.29=3.79 608/2 and 696/2 160/12
06 D. Venkateswarlu 2.97 609/2 161/12
07 B. Nagi Reddy 2.10 611/A1 162/12
08 M. Nagaseshanna 1.12 608/4 164/12
09 B. Venataswamy Reddy 0.17+1.42=1.59 699/1 and 700/2 165/12
10 B. Ravindra Reddy 0.80+1.35=2.15 648/2 and 697/1 166/12
11 B. Sreenivasa Reddy 0.80+1.30=2.10 648/2 and 697/1 167/12
12 B.V.Krishna Reddy 0.80+1.30=2.10 648/2 and 697/1 168/12
13 B. Ramalinga Reddy 1.28 696/2 169/12
14 B. Narayanamma 1.25 696/2 169/12
15 B. Ramakrishna Reddy 1.52 648/2 171/12
16 Somala Narayana Reddy 3.41 624/1 172/12
4) The Land Acquisition Officer at the time of Award enquiry
considered 139 sale transactions from 06.02.2009 to 15.12.2011,
discarded the same except Sl.No.70 on the premise that they are all bit
sales, combined sales, far away sales, lowest rate sales and sale
transactions done after commencement of land acquisition proceedings
and publication of Section 4 (1) Notification of the Act. Ultimately, he fixed
the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre
by adding 10% price escalation. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the
respondents / claimants while receiving the compensation under protest,
sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and to fix the market value
in between Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- per acre.
5) The learned Reference Court clubbed all the OPs and recorded
the evidence in LAOP No.163 of 2012. On behalf of the respondents /
claimants PW1 (Claimant in LAOP No.163 of 2012) and PW2 were
4
examined, and copies of the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.2008 and
01.10.2011 were marked as Exs.A1 and A2 respectively. On behalf of
Referring Officer, RW 1 was examined and copies of General Award and
Award No.5 of 2012 were marked as Exs.B1 and B2 respectively. The
learned Reference Court formulated the following points for
determination:
i) Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is
proper or not?
ii) Whether the claimants are entitled (to market value) in between
Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- per acre?
iii) To what relief?
6) After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Reference Court while discussing about Ex.A1 sale deed dated
11.02.2008, wherein an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents was sold @ Rs.44,000/-,
which works out to Rs.4,40,000/- per acre, and Ex.A2 sale deed dated
01.10.2011, wherein an extent of Ac.3-00 cents was sold to the Trust @
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, felt it appropriate to fix the market value at the
rate of Rs.4,06,000/- per acre, in the light of the conclusions recorded by
it. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the State preferred the above batch of
Appeals.
7) Mr. T.S.Rayulu, learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contended
that the market value fixed by the learned Reference Court is
unreasonable and highly excessive. He submits that the learned
5
Reference Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties
in true and correct perspective and abnormally enhanced the market
value from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.4,06,000/- per acre in respect of the lands in
question without any valid basis. He submits that about 139 sale
transactions were taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer
and the market value was rightly fixed at Rs.45,000/- per acre. He
submits that the learned Reference Court was not right in considering
Ex.A1 sale deed dated 11.02.2008, which was in respect of a small extent
of land and taking the same as comparable sale in respect of large
extents of land is legally not tenable. Learned Government Pleader also
submits that the deductions @ 1/3rd as applied by the learned Reference
Court is also not correct and at least 50% should have been deducted
towards developmental charges. Making the said submissions, he seeks
to allow the appeals by interfering with the orders under challenge.
8) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents /
claimants sought to sustain the fixation of the market value by drawing
attention of this Court to the oral and documentary evidence on record.
He submits that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at a
meager amount of Rs.45,000/- per acre by discarding the sale
transactions which represent more market value in respect of the lands
within the vicinity of the subject matter lands. He submits that the lands
which were purchased by the Trust for the purpose of formation of the MI
6
Tank at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre are barren lands, whereas the
lands under acquisition are fertile, that the respondents / claimants were
raising commercial crops and earning an yearly income of Rs.1,00,000/-
per acre.
9) Referring to the deposition of PW 1 he submits that in view of the
acquisition of the lands of respondents / claimants, they lost their
livelihood and even if they want to purchase the agricultural lands, with
the amount of compensation / market value as fixed by the learned
Reference Court, they will not get even half of the land lost by them. The
learned counsel also contends that the learned Reference Court had
taken the relevant aspects into consideration including the location of the
subject matter lands and fixed the compensation / market value at the
rate of Rs.4,06,000/- per acre though the respondents claimed more. He
also submits that the contention with regard to deduction of 50%
developmental charges is not tenable, as the acquired lands are situated
in a rural area. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Valliyammal and Another v Special
Tahsildar (LA) and Another1 and seeks dismissal of the appeals.
10) This Court has considered the respective arguments and carefully
gone through the material on record.
11) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises
for consideration is “Whether the fixation of market value by the
1
(2011) 8 SCC 91
7
Reference Court is excessive and if so, what is the just / reasonable
compensation to be awarded, in the facts and circumstances of the
case?”
12) At the outset, it may be noted that there is no dispute with regard
to the purpose for which the subject matter lands were acquired i.e., for
the purpose of formation of M.I. Tank across Edduleru vagu (Stream).
The Trust, for the purpose of formation of the said Tank, purchased huge
extents of land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and got registered the
sale deeds in the name of the Trust and one of such sale deed is Ex.A2
dated 01.10.2011. However, it would appear that the respondents-
claimants have not agreed to sell their subject matter lands at the rate of
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, even dissatisfied with the fixation of market value
at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer. Be that
as it may.
13) As noted earlier, the respondent-claimants sought fixation of the
market value in between Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. In
support of their claim, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. PW 1 in his affidavit
in lieu of Chief examination deposed that the lands purchased by the
Trust for formation of Tank @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre are barren lands, not
fit for cultivation and the vendors of the said lands were not getting any
income from the said lands. He also stated that the acquired lands are
black cotton soil lands and they used to raise commercial crops like red-
8
gram, tobacco, sunflower, cotton and chilies etc., and used to get net
income of Rs.50,000/- per acre. In the cross-examination, he admitted
that he is doing business, not agriculture coolie and that even prior to
Section 4 (1) Notification he came to know that the Government will be
going to acquire their lands, because the Trust had already purchased
some lands for the formation of the Tank. While stating that the acquired
lands are situated in the limits of Kothapalli village and his land in M.
Lingavaram village is at a distance of 3 kms, he deposed that the request
made by the Trust to sell @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre was refused by him
and other ryots as their lands are fertile lands. He also admitted that no
materials to show that they are raising commercial crops like red-gram,
tobacco etc., in their respective lands were filed and denied the
suggestion that there is lot of difference between the lands of M.
Lingavaram and Kothapalli villages in respect of the fertility etc. He
further denied the suggestion that the sale transactions under Exs.A1 and
A2 are bogus, sham, nominal and the suggestion that the lands under
Ex.A1 and A2 are barren lands.
14) PW 2 is the vendor of land which is the subject matter of Ex.A1
sale deed dated 11.02.2008. She deposed that she along with others
sold an extent of Ac.0-10 cents of land in Sy.No.17 of Kothappli village
limits for a consideration of Rs.44,000/-. She deposed that her lands are
near to the acquired lands and they are more fertile than her land and the
9
net income per acre would be Rs.1,00,000/- per year. She also
supported the version of PW 1 that the value of the acquired lands as on
the date of acquisition is more than Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. In her cross-
examination, she admitted that the distance between M.Lingavaram and
Kothapalli is 3 or 3 ½ kms., and the distance between M. Lingavaram and
Gokavaram is 1 km. She further deposed that there are houses and
lands in and around the property covered by Ex.A1 and denied the
suggestion that the land covered under Ex.A1 is not cultivable land. She
also denied the suggestion that at the request of the respondents /
claimants Ex.A1 document was created nominally for getting more
compensation.
15) In the chief affidavit of RW 1, the details of various sale
transactions three years prior to Section 4 (1) Notification, were set out
and the reasons for discarding the same were stated. In the cross-
examination RW 1 admitted that the sale transactions in respect of the
serial Nos.86 to 90 of the Award reflects the market value of the lands @
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and that the sales are of the year 2011. It is also
admitted that it is mentioned in the Award that the acquired lands are
situated 2 kms., away from Kothapalli village and Kothapalli is Mandal
Head Quarters. He further admitted that in Ex.B1 Award, it was
mentioned that by the time of inspection of acquired lands, crops like
sunflower, red-gram and paddy were raised and the nature of the soil is
10
black cotton. He also denied the suggestion that the acquired lands are
having more potential value and the market value of the same as on the
date of the acquisition would be more than Rs.6,00,000/- per acre.
16) Thus, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the respondents
/ claimants established that the subject matter lands are black cotton soil
lands and crops like sunflower, red-gram, paddy etc., which are
commercial in nature, were being raised. Though PW 2 deposed that the
acquired lands would fetch an annual income of about Rs.1,00,000/- per
acre, PW 1 in his affidavit in lieu of chief examination stated that they
used to get Rs.50,000/- per acre. However, in view of the admission in
the cross-examination of RW 1 about the crops and nature of the land,
the income from the acquired lands can safely be taken at Rs.50,000/-
per acre. But as seen from the order under challenge, the learned
Reference Court inter alia on the premise that the acquired lands as per
PW 2 fetch Rs.1,00,000/- per year and for the said reason the sale
transaction under Ex.A1 can be taken as comparable sale for the purpose
of determining the compensation. Taking the income @ Rs.1,00,000/- per
acre in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct, more
particularly in view of the contradictory version of PWs 1 and 2 and the
learned Reference Court went wrong in so far as the said aspect. Be that
as it may. The respondents/claimants except Ex.A1 sale deed and Ex.A2
sale deed dated 01.10.2011 had not filed any other material to
11
substantiate their claim. Ex.A2 is a sale deed, which was entered into by
the Trust, just two months prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1)
Notification. According to PW 1, the lands purchased by Trust were not
fertile and no contra evidence was adduced by the RW 1 with regard to
fertility, much less commercial nature of the same.
17) On the other hand PW 1 testified that the acquired lands are fertile
and his version was supported by PW 2 and nothing as elicited during the
cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 that the sale transaction dated
11.02.2008 was not genuine or the value of the land was boosted keeping
in view the formation of the MI Tank. Ex.A1 is in respect of an extent of
Ac.0-10 cents which was sold for Rs.44,000/- i.e., Rs.4,40,000/- per acre.
No doubt, it is a transaction which is three (3) years ten (10) months prior
to the issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification in question. But in the
absence of any other material placed on record by the Referring Officer,
this Court see no reason as to why the same cannot be taken into
consideration for fixation of the market value to that of Ex.A2 sale deed.
It may be appropriate to mention here that to the suggestion in the cross-
examination, RW 1 stated that “I do not know whether G. Pullareddy
Charitable Trust was purchased barren and waste lands at the rate of
Rs.2,00,000/- ….”. That apart in the cross-examination of RW 1 it was
elicited that the acquired lands are situated 2 kms., away from Kothapalli
village and that Kothapalli is Mandal Head Quarters. Therefore, this
12
Court is inclined to take Ex.A1 sale deed dated 11.02.2008 for fixation of
the market value. At this juncture it may also be appropriate to refer to
the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that the sale
transaction vide Ex.A1 is in respect of a small extent of land. In Horrmal
(Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others 2
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the sale
exemplars in respect of the small extents of land can be taken into
consideration for fixation of market value depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. It, however, observed that appropriate
deductions which may even go upto 80% can be made. In the light of the
said decision, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader,
with reference to Ex.A1, merits no appreciation.
18) Taking Ex.A1 as the basis for fixing the market value, this Court
has to workout the compensation in respect of the lands under acquisition
which is just and reasonable. This Court is also required to take into
consideration the time gap between Ex.A1 sale transaction dated
11.02.2008 and the date of Section 4 (1) Notification i.e., 08.12.2011.
Usually the appreciation of market value, as adopted by the Reference
Court would ideally be at the rate of 10% p.a. Adopting the same, the
Reference Court had arrived at the market value @ Rs.6,08,000/- per
acre i.e., by taking the time gap as 3 years 10 months and applied 1/3rd
deductions. Thus, it fixed the market value @ Rs.4,06,000/- per acre.
2
MANU/SC/1134/2024
13
But in the present case, it may be noted that the lands are situated in a
rural area and there may not be much appreciation of market value @
10% p.a. In General Manager, ONGC Ltd., v Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel and Another3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia opined
as follows:
“14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was
no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices
stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or
2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases
in market value of lands in urban / semi-urban areas and
increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if
the increase in market value in urban / semi-urban areas is about
10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural
areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to
7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in
the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific
evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special
reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific
evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the
increase to be applied would depend upon the same.”
19) In the light of the above said decision, this Court is of the opinion
that it would be appropriate to take the increase in the market value at the
rate of 7.5% per annum in spite of 10% p.a., as adopted by the Reference
Court. Thus, by taking the time gap of 3 years 10 months between Ex.A1
sale deed dated 11.02.2008 and the date of Section 4(1) Notification i.e.,
08.12.2011 and the appreciation of market value at the rate of 7.5% p.a.,
the market value of the acquired land works out to Rs.5,66,500/- per acre.
3
(2008) 14 SCC 745
14
Though the learned Government Pleader had raised a contention that the
learned Reference Court went wrong in applying 1/3rd deductions, this
Court is not inclined to accept the said submissions, more particularly in
the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Valliyammal case referred to supra. In the said case the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India while referring to earlier precedents interfered
with the order passed by the High Court of Madras in applying deductions
@ 40% and opined that the deductions of 1/3rd towards development
charges is reasonable. Learned Reference Court in the present case,
therefore, has not committed any irregularity in applying 1/3rd deductions.
20) In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, the market value of
the acquired lands is fixed at Rs.3,77,600/- per acre (rounded off) after
applying 1/3rd deduction towards development charges.
21) The appeals are allowed in part and the market value of
Rs.3,77,600/- is fixed per acre. The respondents/claimants are entitled to
all the statutory benefits on the market value so fixed from the date of
Section 4 (1) Notification. No costs.
22) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_______________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date:09.05.2025
Ssv
15
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAAS NOs: 184; 178; 191; 221; 224; 373; 374; 375; 379; 380; 381;
382; 383; 384; 385 AND 393 OF 2014
Date:09.05.2025
ssv
[ad_1]
Source link