[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
V.Laxmidevamma vs The Special Deputy Collector L.A. on 26 June, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
I.
I
^<0
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
LAND ACQUISITIONAPPEAL SUIT NOS: 165.192. 344 AND 349 OF 9niA
LAAS N0.165 OF 2014:
APHC010255902014
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in US,OP.No.25 of 2007
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
Between:
Y.Viswanatha Reddy, S/o.Y.Rami Reddy, aged 69 years, Hindu, Retired
Bank Employee, R/o.D.No.97-85-1, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
...Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
...Respondent/Referring Officer
r^:T
* r\c=Cl4
(
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.S.Rayalu GP for Appeals
LAAS N0.192 OF 2014-
APHC010777262014
R3
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.33 of 2007
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Kurnool, Kurnool District.
Between:
G.Venkatarami Reddy, S/o.G.Thimma Reddy, 3ged about 58 years
R/o.H.No.9/282, Gowripeta, Bethamcherla MandalJ, Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A) H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.S.Rayalu, GP for Appeals
3LAAS N0.344 OF 2014:
APHC010353432014
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.29 of 2008
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
Between:
V.Laxmidevamma, W/o.V.P.Ramanjaneyulu, aged about 60 years.
R/o.Plot No.23, Brundavan Nagar, Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.S.Rayalu, GP for AppealsLAAS N0.349 OF 2014:
APHC010039582014
4
S:
he Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.23 of 2007
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
Between:
S.Jagadeeswar Reddy, S/o.S.Venugopal Reddy, aged about 60 years.
R/o.J.R.Housing Developers Pvt Ltd., Corporate Office, 2^’^ Floor, Main
Road, 5^^ Block, Koramamilla, Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Claimant
ANDThe Special Deputy Collector (L.A) H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri T.S.Rayalu, GP for Appeals
The Court made the following:
APHC010255902014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3526]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAOLAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL Nos.165. 192, 344 & 349 of 2014
Between: (LAAS No.165 of 2014)
Y.Viswanatha Reddy, S/o.Y.Rami Reddy
… Appellant/Claimant
ANDThe Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), H.N.S.S., Unit – IV, Kurnool.
… Respondent/Referring Officer
Counsel for the Appellant Mr.K.Rathanga Pani ReddyCounsel for the Respondent Mr.T.S.Rayalu, G.P. for Appeals
The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J)
Heard Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for
Appeals for the respondent.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the common order
dated 31.12.2012 in L.A.O.P. Nos.23, 25, 29 and 33 of 2007 on the file of
the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The appellants are the
claimants, who filed the said O.Ps under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), seeking enhancement of the
compensation. The said O.Ps were disposed of along with a batch of
other O.Ps.
2
3 por the purpose of Handrineeva Sujala Sravanthi – Unit IV,
Kurnool, an extent of Ac.51.00 acres in Sy.Nos.223/1, 224/1 of
B.Thandrapadu village was sought to be acquired. The possession of the
lands was taken over by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4)
of the Act. On 27.05.2006, the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act was issued and after conducting enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer
value of
vide Award No.30/2006-07, dated 20.11.2006 fixed the market
the lands at the rate of 65,000/- per acre and Rs.75,000/- per acre, by
classifying the same into Category 1 and 11.
the
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in
connected batch of appeals i.e., LAAS Nos.1064 and 1101 of 2011,
which are filed by the Government, the claimants therein filed Cross-
Objections and while considering the same, a Division Bench of this Court
by orders dated 25.4.2025 dismissed the appeals filed by the
Government and partly allowed the Cross-Objections. He submits that
the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench
dated 25.4.2025 and further Ex.B.6 sale deed dated 13.9.2004, which
was taken into consideration for the purpose of enhancing the market
value, was marked as Ex.B.2 in the above referred O.Ps. He also
submits that though the enhancement is sought @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per
acre, as the Division Bench in LAAS Nos. 1064 and 1101 of 2011 had an
occasion to consider the said sale transaction, which is taken as the basis
for enhancement for compensation, the very same compensation as fixed
in the above referred appeals may be awarded in the present appeals
also.
5. Considering the said submissions and as the matter is squarely
covered by the order dated 25.4.2025, the appeals are partly allowed,
enhancing the market value of the subject matter land @ Rs.3,67,760/-
per acre. The appellants are entitled for the enhanced compensation
3
amount from the date of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
They are also entitled to all the statutory benefits, The enhanced
compensation shall be deposited, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District.
(With records)
2. One CC to Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate [OPUO
3. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati.
5. Two CD Copies
+ Along with Photo copy of the certified copy of Common Judgment
dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LAAS
Nos.1064 and 1101 of 2011.
BSV
sree
BSV
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/06/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT & DECREE
LAAS NOS.165,192, 344 AND 349
2014
^ k JUL 2025 I
Qwrtnl Section
ALLOWING THE APPEALS IN PART
WITHOUT COSTS
APHC010353432014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 344 OF 2014
Between:
V.Laxmidevamma, W/o.V.P.Ramanjaneyulu, aged about 60 years,
R/o.Plot No.23, Brundavan Nagar, Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.29 of 2008
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court, and material papers in the
petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy,
Advocate for Appellant and of Sri T.S.Rayalu, Government Pleader forAppeals/Respondent.
1. That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part;
2. That the market value of the subject matter land be and is hereby
enhanced @ Rs.3,67,760/- per acre
3. That the appellant be and is hereby entitled for the enhanced
compensation amount from the date of the Notification under Section
4(1) of the Act;
4. That the appellant be and is hereby also entitled to all the statutory
benefits;
5. That the enhanced compensation be deposited, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order; and
6. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.
Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2. Two CD Copies
BSV
sree
f
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/06/2025
DECREE
LAAS N0.344 OF 2014
X 11| JUL 2025 s
Current Snenon
ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART
WITHOUT COSTS
APHC010777262014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 192 OF 2014
Between:
G.Venkatarami Reddy, S/o.G.Thimma Reddy, aged about 58 years
R/o.H.No.9/282, Gowripeta, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.33 of 2007
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court, and material papers in the
petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy,
Advocate for Appellant and of Sri T.S.Rayalu, Government Pleader for
Appeals/Respondent.
, . That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part;
2. That the market value of the subject matter land be and is hereby
enhanced @ Rs.3,67,760/- per acre.
3. That the appellant be and is hereby entitled for the enhanced
compensation amount from the date of the Notification under Section
4(1) of the Act;
4. That the appellant be and is hereby also entitled to all the statutory
benefits;
5. That the enhanced compensation be deposited, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order; and
6. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.
Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2. Two CD Copies
BSV
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/06/2025
DECREE
LAAS N0.192 OF 2014
■qF and«^
5 H JUL 2D25 „
^ , Current Section
£eSPATCl^
ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART
WITHOUT COSTS
r
APHC010039582014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 349 OF 2014
Between:
SJagadeeswar Reddy, S/o.S.Venugopal Reddy, aged about 60 years,
R/o.J.R.Housing Developers Pvt Ltd., Corporate Office, 2″^^ Floor, Main
Road, S**” Block, Koramamilla, Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.23 of 2007
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court, and material papers in the
petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy,
Advocate for Appellant and of Sri T.S.Rayalu, Government Pleader for
Appeals/Respondent.
1. That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part;
2. That the market value of the subject matter land be and is hereby
enhanced @ Rs.3,67,760/- per acre
3. That the appellant be and is hereby entitled for the enhanced
compensation amount from the date of the Notification under Section
4(1) of the Act;
4. That the appellant be and is hereby also entitled to all the statutory
benefits:
5. That the enhanced compensation be deposited, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order; and
6. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.
Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
P %
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2, Two CD Copies
BSV
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/06/2025
DECREE
LAAS N0.349 OF 2014
ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART
WITHOUT COSTS
APHC010255902014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 165 OF 2014
Between:
Y.Viswanatha Reddy, S/o.Y.Rami Reddy, aged 69 years, Hindu, Retired
Bank Employee, R/o.D.No.97-85-1, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
…Appellant/Claimant
AND
The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), H.N.S.S., Unit-IV, Kurnool.
…Respondent/Referring Officer
Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against
the Order and Decree, dated 31-12-2012 passed in LAOP.No.25 of 2007
on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court, and material papers in the
petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy,
Advocate for Appellant and of Sri T.S.Rayalu, Government Pleader forAppeals/Respondent.
1. That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed in part;
2. That the market value of the subject matter land be and is hereby
enhanced @ Rs.3,67,760/- per acre.
3. That the appellant be and is hereby entitled for the enhanced
compensation amount from the date of the Notification under Section
4(1) of the Act;
4. That the appellant be and is hereby also entitled to all the statutory
benefits;
5. That the enhanced compensation be deposited, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order; and
6. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.
Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2. Two CD Copies
BSV
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/06/2025
DECREE
LAAS N0.165 OF 2014
ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART
WITHOUT COSTS
.. lA-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATL^
FRIDAY .THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL I •f
a
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
honourable SRI JUSTICE TMALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No. 1t01 of 2011
and
LA Nq.2 of 2012 (Cross Qblectiorvs No. 13011 of 2012)
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nn linf nf omt
Between*
The Special Deputy Collector, [Land Acquisitori]: HRSS Unit-1 V. Kurnool.
Kurnpol District.
…Appellant
AND
C. Bhageerathamma, W/o Dr. C. Anjanappa age; major H.No.50/750-A-1,
Tagore Nagar, Kurnool.
…Respondent
Appeal under Section 54 of L-A Act of 1894, against the order and
decree passed in OP NO. 26/2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kurnool, dated 27-6-2011.
lANO; 2 OF 2012IXOBJ. NO- i o) . -4
0,. Bhageerathamma, W/o Dr. C. Anjanappa, age; major H.No.50/750-A-1,
Tagore Nagar, Kurnool.
…Appellant
AND
The Special Deputy Gollector, [Land Acquisiton] HNSS Unit-IV, Kurnool.
Kurnooi District.
…Respondent
Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, aggrieved by
the Judgment and decree of Principal Senior Civil Judge. Kurnool in
L.A.O.P No.26 of 2007 in so far as enhancing compensation from 65,000/-
to Rs. 1,50.000/- only per acre.
These Appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon
perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial
Court and material
papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of
Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the
Appellant/Referring Officer in the LAAS No.1101 of 2011 and for the
Respondent in Cross-Objections No.13011 of 2012 and of Sri. K Rathanga
Pam Reddy, Advocate for Respondents in LAAS No. 1101 of 2011 and for
the Claimants/Cross Objectors in Cross-objections No. 13011 of 2012.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the LAAvS Nos. 1101 of 201 1 be and is hereby dismissed;
2. That the Cross-Objections i.A No 2 of 2012 (Cross Objections
No. 13011 of 2012) be and ?s hesroby
■ allowed in part;
3. That the cross-objectors be and are hereby entitled for the
enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4 (1)
Notification:
4. That they are also be and hereby entitled to all the statutory
benefits;
5. That the enhaneed compensation be deposited, as expeditiously
as possible at any late, within a period of two (02) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and
6. That there he no order as to costs in this appeal.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Principal Civil JudgefSenior Division), Kurnool
Kurnool district
2. Three.CD,copies
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:25/04/2025
DECREE
LAAS.Nos.1101 of 2011
AND
I.A No.2 of 2012 (Cross Objections No. 13011 of 2012)
DISMISSING THE LAAS
ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN
PART
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV
FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND and TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOs. 1064 OF 2011
AND
I.A Nq.2 of 2012 (Cross Objections No. 13009 of 2012)
Land Acquisition Appeal Suit No: 1064 of 2011
Between:
The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition] HNSS Unit-IV, Kurnool,
Kurnooi: District,…AppeHant/Referring Officer
ANDC.A.B. Srikanth, S/o. Dr.C. Anjanappa, age Major, H No. 50/750-A-1,
Tangore Nagar. Kurnool.
…Respondents /Cfaimant
Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act of 1894, against the order and
decree passed in OP NO. 37/2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kurnool, dated 27-6-2011.
%
2012(XOBJ. NO:
■ ■^•^:^,”‘^-‘A^”, ”-‘I
Bi^Wee.^.’
G.A.B. Srikanth, S/o. Dr.C. Anjanappa, age 41 years, H.No. 50/750-A-1
‘ T’angore Nagar, Kunrool.
…Cross Objector/Respondent/Claimant
ANDThe Special Deputy Collector. (Land Acquisition) HNSS UniWV, Kurnoo!.
Kurnool District.
…Respondents /Appellant/Refei-ririg Offleer
Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, aggrieved
by the Judgment and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in
L.A.O.P No.37/2007 in so far as enhancing compensation from 65,000/- to
Rs. 1,50,000/- only per acre.
These Appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon
perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Deoree of the Trial
Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of
Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the
Appellant/Referring Officer in the LAAS No. 1064 of 2011 and for the
Respondent in Cross-Objections No. 13009 of 2012 and Sri. K Rathanga
Pani Reddy, Advocate for Respondents in LAAS No. 1064 of 2011 and for
the ClaimantG/CrosG Objectors in Cros’^-f^’bjectione No. 13009 of 2012.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the LAAS Nos. 1064 of 2011 be and is hereby dismissed:
2. That the Cross-Objections !-A No. 2 r 2012 (Cross ubjections
nrNo. 13009 of 2012) be and is hereby allowed in part
3. That the cross-objectors be and are hereby entitled for the
enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4 (1)
Notification;
4. That they are also be and hereby entitled to all the statutory
benefits;
5. That the enhanced compensation be deposited, as expeditiously
as possible at any rate, within a period of two (02) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and
6, That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE CORY//
d::
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Princlpat Civil JudgefSenior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool
district
2.,, Three CD copies
HIGH COURTDATED:25/04/2025
DECREE
LAAS.Nos.1064 of 2011
AND
i.A No.2 of 2012 (Cross Objections No. 13009 of 2012)
QfX 25 mw
Curreni Secnoo ^DiSMiSSiNG THE LAAS
ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN
PART
h.
‘.’V
s
%A
!N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIMARJUNA RAO
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOs. 1064 & 1101 2011
AND
I.A Nq.2 of 2012 fCross Objections No. 130Q9 of 2012)
&
LA No.2 of 2012 (Cross Objections No. 13011 of
Land Acgutt^ition Appeal Suit No: 1QG4 of 2011
Appeal tifidef Section 54 of L.A Act of 1894, against the order and
passed in OP NO, 37/2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge KurnooJ, dated 27-6-2011.
Between:
The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) HNSS Unit-IV, KurnooL
Kurnool District.
…Appellant/Referring Officer
ANDC.A.B. Srikanth, S/o. Dr.C. Anjanappa, age Major, H.No. 50/750-A-1,
Tangore Nagar, Kurnool.
…Respondents /Claimant
g.A, NO: 1 OF 2011(LAASMP. NO: 2443 OF 2011), Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
/statecHn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased ;to-grant stay of all further proceedings In passed in OP No.
37/2007, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Kurnoo! dated
27-6-2011.
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for
AppealsCounsel for the Respondent: Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy
!,A. NO: 2 OF 2012fXQBJ. NO: 13009 OF 2012)
Betvireen:
C.A.B. Srikanth, S/o. Dr.C. Anjanappa, age 41 years, H.No. 50/750-A-1,
Tangore Nagar, Kunrool.
…Cross Objector/Respondent/Claimant
ANDThe Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) HNSS UniWV, Kurnool,
Kurnool District.
…Respondents /Appellant/Referring OffiGer
Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC,aggrieved by
the Judgment and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in
No.37/2007 in so far as enhancing compensation from 65,000/- to
Rs. 1,50,000/- only per acre.
Counsel for the Cross Objector ; Sri. K Rathanga Pani Reddy
^-ounsel for the Respondents/Referring Officer: Sri T.S Rayalu,
Government Pleader for Appeals
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NQ: 1101 OF 2011Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act of 1894, against the order and
decree passed in OP NO. 26/2D97 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kurnooi, dated 27-6-2011.
Between:
The Special Deputy Collector, [Land Acquisiton] HNSS Uhit-IV, Kurnooi.
Kdrhod) District,
…Appellant
ANDC. BhEageerathamma, W/o Dr. C. Anjanappa, age; major H.No.50/750-A-1,
Tagore Nagar, Kurnooi.
…Respondent
LA. NO: 1 OF 2Q11(LAASMP. NO: 2445 0F 2
Petitidn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings In passed in OP No.
26/2007 on the file of Principal aenior Civil Judge, Kurnooi dated 27-6-
2011.
LA. NO: I DF 2012fLAASMP. NO: 1398 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the Order granted in LAAS MP No. 2445/2011 in LAAS
No. 1101/2011 dated 12.12.2011.
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T S Rayalu, Government Pleader for
Appeals
/Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K Rathanga Pans Reddy
[.A. NO: 2 OF 2012/XOBJ. NO: 13011 QF 7M7)
Between:
C. Bhageerathamma, W/o Dr. C. Anjanappa , age; major H.No.50/750-A-1,
Tagore Nagar, Kurnool.
..^Appellant
ANDThe Special Deputy Collector, [Land Acquisiton) HNSS Unit-IV, Kurnool.
Kurnool District.
…Respondent
Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, aggrieved by
the Judgment and decree of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in
L.A.O.P No.26 of 2007 in so far as enhancing compensation from 65,000/-
to Rs.1,50,000/- only per acre.
Counsel for the Cross Objector: Sri K Rathanga Pant Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent; Srl T SRayalu, Government Pleader for
AppealsThe Court made the following:
1
APHC010199592011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3495]
(Speelal Original Jurisdiction)FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENTHONOURAiLE SRI JUSTIGl NINALA JAYASURYA
HONOURAeLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
DAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOS: 1064 & 1101 OF 2011iA.No.2 of 2012 [Cross-Objections No.13Q09 of 20121
&TA,Nq.2 of 2012 fCross^Ofaiection^ No.13011 of 2012)
LAASNo.lQO4Qf20il!Tht Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) HNSS Unit- ..APPELLANT
IV KurnoolCABSrikanth
…RESPONDENTCounsel for the Appellant:
1 .Mr.T S.Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals
Counsel for the Respondent:
i.iVlr.K. Rathangapani Reddy
2
v’The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per njs.j)
The present appeals and the Cross-olDjections arise out of a Gommonjudgment and decree dated 27.06.2011 passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in LAOP Nos.37 of 2007 and 26 of 2007 & Batch.
2) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. T.S. Rayalu, learned
Government Pleader for Appeals and Mr. K. RathangaPani Reddy, learned
counsel for the Respondents/ciaimants-cross-objectors.
3) Before dealing with the relevant facts and contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, it may be appropriate to mention
here that about seven OPs were disposed of by the Reference Court vide
common order dated 27.06.2011. In so far as LAOP Nos.37 of 2007 and 26 of2007, Cross Objections were filed, In so far as LAOP No.24 of 2007, it is
represented that though cross objections were filed, without noticing the
same, the appeal filed by the State vide LAAS No. 1153 of 2011 was dismissed
on 10.03.2023. In so efr as LAOP No.22 of 2007, 13 Of 2007, 15 of 2007 and
16 of 2007, no cross objections were filed and the appeals filed by the
Government viz., LAAS Nos. 1061; 1062, 1122 of 2011 and 27 of 2012 against
the orders passed in the said OPs were dismissed on 17 10 20 OX m view ut
the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Government, the present Appeals of
the Government are also liable to be dismissed. However, the cross-
objections of the claimants are required to be examined independently and
just and reasonable compensation has to be determined.
3
4) For the purpose of Handrineeya Sujala Sravanthi – Unit IV, Kurnool (for
short “HNSS ProjeGt”), an extent Gf AG.51.00 aGres in Sy.Nos.22371, 224/1 of
B. Thandrapadu viliage was sought to be acquired. The possession of the
lands was taken over by invoking the urgenGy Glause under Section 17 (4) of
the yarkf Acquisition Act (for short “the Acf’).
Notification Under Section 4 (1) of the Act was Issued and after conducting
enquiry .’he Land Acquisition Officer (for short “the LAO”| vide Award
No.30/2006-07, dated 20.11.2006 fixed the market value of the lands at the
rate of 65,000/- per acre and RsJ5,000/- per acre^ by classifying the same
into Category I and II,
5) Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimants / land owners received the
compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act .
Before the Reference Court, they made a claim for Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs.25
Lakhs per acre towards compensation. They examined RVVs 1 and 2 i.e.,
clairnants in O.RNo.37 and 24 of 2007 and got marked Exs. B1 to B8. On
behalf of the Referring Officer, PW 1 was examined and ExS.Al to A3 were
marked. The learned Reference Court after considering the matter, enhanced
the compensation from Rs.65,000/- per acre to Rs;1,60,000/- pcf acre. The
State, aggrieved by the said fixation of the Market value at the Rs.l ,50,000/-
the daimants /
per acre, filed LAAS Nos, 1064 & 1101 of 2011, and
respondents filed cross-objections, but restricted their claim to Rs.8,00,
per acre.
6) As stated earlier, the appeals preferred by the State against the
Gommort order were already dismissed and therefere the appeals in so far as
the State are concerned need not be examined and the same are dismissed in
the light of the Orders in LAAS No. 1153 of 2011 dated 10.03.2023.
7) Mr.K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the cross-objector s Mer
alia contended that the lands in question are abutting the Kurnool Municipal
Corporation and touching the N.H.18, that the same would fetch more than
Rs.25 Lakhs per acre, however the Gross-objectors are restricting the claim to
Rs.8 Lakhs per acre. He submifs that the acquired lands are surfounded by
several educational institutions like Kesava Reddy High School, Safa
Engineering & Pharmacy Colleges, Pulla Reddy Engineering College etc., and
building activity is increasing day by day and there are several residential
colonies near the acquired land. He submits that the subject matter land is
having high potentiality for house plots and the Reference Court is not justified
in fixing the market value of a meagre sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. He
submits that to substantiate their claim, the cross^objectbrs/claimahts had
relied on several registered sale deeds, but the learned Referehce Court
without assigning any reasons had discarded the same on the premise that
the persons connected to the sale deeds were not examined by the
claimants/cross-objectors to prove the contents of the said documents. He
submits that the view taken by the learned Reference Court is not sustainable
in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Land
5
Acquisition Officer & Mandai Revenue Officer v .V Narasaiah^, Cement
Corpn. Of India Lid., v Purya and Others^ foilowed by different Division
Benches of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M.Butchi Reddy
and Ors., v Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer,
Natgonda and Ors.,^; etc. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the
decision in Dheeraj Singh v Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority & Ors / and Mohammad Raofuddin v Land Acquisition Officer^.
8) He seeks enhancement of compensation and allow the cross-
objections.
9) Learned Government Pleader for appeals on the other hand made
submissions to the effect that the cross-objectors / claimants have not
adduced any evidence to establish that the lands in duestton are proximate to
National Highway or having more potentiality^ He also contends that the value
of the lands in the same may not fetch the same market value and it all
depends upon various factors like Ibeation, connectivity etc. In any event,
he
submits that as the order of the Reference Court in tbe connected cases is
confirmed and the market value as fixed by the Reference Court was not
interfered with, the cross-objectors / claimants are not entitled to any further
enhaneement as sought for. Accordingly, he urges for dismissal of the cross-
objections.
U20Ol)3 5CC 530
^ (2004) 8 see 270
^ 2005(1) ALT 226 (08)
” Civil Appeal No._ of 2023 dated 04.07.2023
^ (2009) 14 sec 367
6
10) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
material on record. On a due consideration of the matter, the point that arises
for consideration is “Whether the fixation of the market value at Rs. 1,50,000/-
per acre in the light of the orders passed in LAAS No.1153 of 2011 has to be
confirmed or the same has to be enhanced, in the light of the cross-objections
filed by the claimants?”
11) Before dealing with the point under consideration, it may be noted that
there is no dispute with regard to the extent of land acquired pursuant to the
Notification dated 27.05,2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is also not in
dispute that the appeals preferred by tt:e State against enhancement of
compensation from Rs.65,000/- to Rs1 50 000/ – per acre were dismissed bythis Court. Dismissal of the appeals of the State, in the considered opinion of
this Court, would not preclude the cross-objectors / claimants to pursue thematter for enhancement of the compensation more particularly when it is not
case of the State that while deciding the appeal LAAS No.1153
filed by the State, the cross-objections were also examined and thereafter, a
comprehensive order was passed dismissing the cross-objections also. Aperusal of the order passed in LAOP 1153 of 2011 dated 10.03.2023 would
make It clear that there is no reference to the cross-objections of the
claimants, it appears that the attention of the Court was not drawn to the fact
that cross-objections were filed in the said appeal and as such, there was no
occasion to the learned Bench to deal with thie aspect of cross-objections.
7
^ pi
12) In Dheeraj Singh case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
N
India was dealing with an appeal filed against the orders of the High Court of
Allahabad, wherein cross-objections were overlooked and an order was
passed. In para No. 18 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as
follows;
“18. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the issues
raised by the appellants in their cross objections have not beenconsidered by the High Ceurt. No mention of the cross objections filed
:by the appellants her^n have been found in the said judgment. While
the High Court has given a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in
the appeal and the both the lower court orders, however, the cross
objections In specific, finds no discussion, much less even a mention.
13) FotlowiTig the decisipn in Jitendra Prasad Nayak v Anant Kumar
s
the Hoh’ble SupFeme Court of India set aside the order underappeal holding inter Ma that the High Court was under an obligation to
consider the crosSTobjections filed by the appellants therein,
14) In the light of the above said; decisions and the facts of the present
case, tr ot^eGtiohs raised by the learned Government Pleader merits no
acceptance and the sanne are aceordingly overruled.
15) Coming to the aspect of fixation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the cross-
objectors claim for more cOmpensation, this Court is required to examine the
oral and documentary evidence on record. In support of their case, the
in his chief
claimants/ cross-objectors were examined as RWs 1 and 2.
affidavit, RW 1 categorically stated about the location of the subject matter
® (1998) 9 SGC 383
8
lands, that they are touching the .MH-18 and surrounded by Golleges,
educational institutions as also other reputed institutions.
He deposed that
acquired land is just 3 kms
from the Kurnool Municipality, having great
potentiality for house plots and the demand for house plots is increasing
manifold. He also stated that about Ac.39-00 cents of land was aoqLrired by
the Government adjoining the lands of the claimants for the purpose of AP
Housing Board in the year 2002, and the Market value was confirmed by the
High Court at the rate of Rs.8 Lakhs per acre. He deposed that the several
fransaetions in respect of the adjacent lands would go to show that the lands
in question were fetching a reasonable amount of Rs. 18.000/ – per cent as on
the date of Section 4(1) Notification. RW 2 also deposed in similar lines.
16) In the cross-examination of RW1 nothing worth mentioning was
elicited to the effect that the subject matter lands are far away from the NH-18.
He denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 to B6 sale deeds are concocted. He
also denied the suggestion that the Kesava institutions
i are 2 Kms., away from
NH 18. In the cross-examination he
categorically stated that Safa
Engineering college and Narayana Residential College are situated on the
eastern side of NH 18 side, which is opposite to the acquired land of the
claifnant and that the RTO office and the
said institutions are situated 2 kms.,
from his acquired land. While denying various suggestions in the cross
examination, even RW 2 supported the case of RW 1 and categoncally stated
that fne acquired land is adjacent to) inH 18 and Safa Engineering College !S
9
situated opposite to his acquired land. He had also denied the suggestion that
there are no residential houses or colonies surrounding his acquired land.
Thus, the oral evidence on record would support the case of the cross-
objectors/claimants that the acquired lands are proximate / situate near the
Natiohal High way.
It may he rilevant to mehtion here that in the Gross-examination PW
i while denying the suggestion that the distance between the acquired lands
and NH 18 is 100 feeh he stated that the lands are situated at a distance of 1
km. Even the learned Reference Court had noted the admissions of PW 1
that Kesavareddy High School, Safa Engineering cx3llege and other
educational institutions were situated nearby the acquired lands and the
claimants may get higher market value than the market value fixed by the
LAG, if they alienate the same or make use of the jands for house sites.
While taking into consideration of the said aspects, the learned Reference
Court however, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.130.000/- per acre. It
has not gh/en much weight to Exs BI ot BO documents, which are sale deeds
in respect of the lands within the vicinity of the acquired lands, the Reference
Court had not taken the said documents into consideration on the premise that
none of the persons conneeted to the said documents were examined.
18) The said view of Reference Court is not sustainable in the light of the
decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In .V Narasaiah
case, referred to supra, dealing With an appeal against the orders of the
10
Division Bench of High Court of AP with reference to Section 51-A of the Act,
in
para 13 and 14 the Hon’ble Sypreme Court inter a//a opined as follows:
13. !f the position regardifig admissibility of the contents of a document
which is a certified copy failing within the purview of Section 57(5) of the
Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of
Section 51-A in the LA Act, could there be any legislative object in
incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be
remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the
lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the
prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent
past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The
practice had shown that for the State officials it was a burden to trace out
the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds
and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving such
transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the
new Section 51-A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says that
certified copy of a registered document “may be accepted as evidence of
the transaction recorded in such document” it enables the court to treat
what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred; to
therein, as evidence.
14. The words “may be accept^ as evidence’ in the section indicate that
there is no compulsion on the court to aecept such transaction as evidence^
but it is open to the court to treat them as evicfence. Wlerely accepting them
as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as Feliabie
evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded
in the documents may be treatedas evidence, just like any other evidence,
and it is for the court to weigh all the prOs and cons to decide whether such
transaction can be relied on tor under standing the real price of the land
concerned.”
13) The three member bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while not
accepTing the opinion of the two Judge Bench in LE !
6 decisions in Indor Singh
II
V Union of India^and P. Ram Reddy v Land Acquisition Officer^ that even
\
in respect of Section 51-A of the Act certified copies of sale deeds could not
be considered without examining the persons connected with the transactions,
did not find fault with the orders of the High Court for relying on the
transaetions recorded in the exhibits though no one was examined for proving
such transactions.
20) In a subsequent decisibn in Cement C&rpm, Of india Ltd., referred to
supra, a five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with scope and
evidentiary value of the documents and interpreted Section 51-A of the Act. It
also set at naught the conflicting views between the two (2) and three (3)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Special
Deputy Ooilector v Kurra Sambmiva Rae^ md Land Acquisition O fficer &
Mandal Revenue Officer v .V Narasaiahi’^ and another three (3)-Judge
Bench in CA No.6986 of 1989 dated 31.07.2001. According to the judgment in
Kurra Sambasiva Rao, referred to supra, Section 51-A of the Act only
dispenses with the production of original sale deed and permits the receiving
of certified copy of such doGument in evidence. It was held that the marking of
certified copy per se does not make the contents of such document admissible
in evidence unless it is duly proved and witnessed, that is by examination of
the vendor or vendee. In the subsequent case of .V Narasaiah referred to
‘ (1993) 3 SCG 240
® (1995) 2 sec 305
® (1997) 6 see 41
(2001) 3 SCC;530
12
f f
supra, it was held that the object of the Act was not only to permit the
y. ,
production of certified copies of the sate transactions, but also to accept the
same as evidence of the transactions. I I ic
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India after referring to a catena of judgments and white
opining that Section 51-A of the Act as understood in .V Narasaiah‘s case to
be the correct interpretation, in para 39, inter alia held as follows:
“While it is clear that under Section 51-A of the LA Act a
presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the
document is permitted to be rebutted by other evidence. Inthe said view of the matter we are of the opinion that the
decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition
Officer & Mandal Fievenue Officer v .V Narasaiah lays
down the correct law. Sf
21) In the present case, though no rebuttal evidence was adduced on
behalf of the State, the learned Reference Court went wrong in opining that
Ex.B1 to B6 cannot be taken into consideration, as none of the persons
connected to the said documents were examined. Apart from the above
mentioned sale transactions, the claimants have also placed reliance on
Ex.B7 i.e., Judgment of Reference Court in LAOP No.87 of 1998 dated10.12.2003, which is in respect of the acquisition of lands situated in B.
Thandrapadu village for the purpose of establishment of Post-GraduationCentre of Sri Krishnadevaraya University at Kurnool. Section 4 (1) Notification
in respect of the said acquisition was dated 05,05.1994. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded a sum of Rs 1 .sn nnn/. nor
Aggrieved by which, the
13matter was carried to the Reference Court seeking enhancement. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, including the orders passed
by the erstwhile High Court of A.P.. in A.S.No.2240 of 2001, the ReferenceCourt enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.1,50,000/- to
Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre.
22) The learned counsel for the cross-objectors / claimants contended that
the Reference Court ought to have taken the judgment in LADP No.807 of’
1998 px.B7) and fixed the compensation by applying the ratio of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash (Dead) by LRS., v Union oflndia^\
The HOn’ble Supreme Court of India in /Wohammad/?aofudc//n case inter aliaheld that In the absence of sale deeds, the Judgment and Awards passed in
respect of the lands acquired In the vicinity can be aecepted as valid evidence
and basis to determine the market value. However, in the case on hand, sale
deeds are availabie. Thereldre, the same can be considered for fixing the
market value, instead of 6x.i7 as contended by the learned counsel for the
claimants/cross-objectors.
23) Ex BI is a Registered sale deed transaction of the year 2004, wherein
an extent M 1200 Sq.ftTI 33.33 Sq.yards was sold for Rs.24,000/-. Ex.B2 is a
sale transaction dated 31.01.2006 wherein an extent of 1910 3q.yards was
sold for Rs. 1,34,000/-. ix.B3 ts a sale transaction dated 31.07.2002 wherein
an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.194 was sold for Rs.30,000/-. Ex. B5
dated 16H2.2003, is a registered sale transaction in respect of the land
(2064) 10 see 627
14situated in Sy.No.289/B, wherein an extent of 14811 sq.yards was sold for
Rs.3 Lakhs and Ex.B6 dated 13.09.2004 is in respect of the sale of land of an
extent of Ac.2=00 cents situated in Sy.No.195 of B. Thandrapadu, reflecting the
value at the rate of Rs.3,39,200/- per acre. Ex.B4 sale transaction dated
25.03.2006 is just two months prior to Section 4 (1) Notification under which
an extent of one acre situated in Sy.No.194 was sold for Rs.2,05,000/-.
Except Ex.B4 and B6, all other sale transactions are on the basis of sq.yard
basis and the same cannot be considered as comparable sales to the huge
extent of land acquired under the present notification.
24) For arriving at just and reasonable compensation, Ex.B6 sale
transaction dated 13.09.2004 reflecting market value of Rs.3,39,200/- per acre
can be taken into consideration. Section 4{1) of the Notification was issued on
A
/
/
27.05.2006. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
la m Pmhash case referred to above, this Court is inclined to fix the
market vaiup, takihg the time gap between the said sale transaetioh dated
13.09.2004 and the Section 4(1) of the Notification dated 27.05.2006i i.e.,
about 20 months and 14 days by adding value appreciation at the rate of 12%
p.a.. Therefore, if the same is taken into account i.e., Rs.69,423/- for the
purpose of arriving at the just compensation, the market value would be
around Rs.4,08,623/- per acre. In the light of the settled legal position and the
potentiality of the land for house sites, it may be appropriate to deduct 10%
towards development charges. •”fter giving effect to the same, the market
/ni
15
value works out to Rs.3,67,760/- per acre. The point is accordingly answered
against the appellant / State and partly in favour of the cross objectors.
25) In the result, LAAS Nos. 1064 and 1101 of 2011 are dismissed. The
Cross-objections I.A.No.2 of 2012 (Cross-Objections No.13009 of 2012)
I.A.No.2 of2012 (Cross-Objections No.l3011 of 2012) are allowed in part.
26) The cross-objectofs are entitled for the enhanced compensation from i
the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. They are also entitled to all the statutory
benefits. The enhanced conripensation shall be depositedy as expeditiously as
possible at any rate, within a period of two (02) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs .
27) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Pi’incipat€iv(|.(Judge(Senior Division), Kwnool, Kurnool district
(with records if any)
2. One CG to Sri. K Rathanga Pani Reddy Advocate [OPUC]
3. TwoCCs to the Government Pleader for Appeals, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT]
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi
5. THREE CD Copies
Stl!
HIGH COURT
DATED:25/04/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREES
LAAS.NOS.1064& 1101 of 2011
AND
I.A No.2 of 2012 (Cross Objections No. 13009 of 2012)
&
I.A No.2 of 2012 (Cross Objections No. 13011 of 2012)
o ow
5
no.
2 5 iUN 2025
. CurreniS^non
★
DlSn/IISSiNG THE LAAS
ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN
PART
[ad_2]
Source link