None 350 of 2014 on 21 November 1998

1. GP FOR APPEALS

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. BUTTAVIJAYABHASKER

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J)

The present batch of appeals arise out of a common order dated06.09.2010 in LAOP Nos.59: 58; 60 and 61 of 2007 on thefile of theCourt of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, andis disposedof bythiscommon judgment.

2) The State aggrieved by the said orders preferredthe presentappeals.

3) For the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections, aNotification, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “theAct), dated 21.11.1998 for acquisition of the lands of the respondents-claimantsi.e.anextentofAc.0-474centsofMr.K.NazeerAli(petitioner’s husband in LAOP No.58 of 2007), an extent of Ac.0.474 ofMr.K.MD.Sharifi (Petitioner in LAOP No.59 of 2007);[an][ extent][ of][ Ac.0-]474 cents of Mr. K.Md.Hussain (Petitioner in LAOP No.60 of 2007) andan extent of Ac.0.948 cents of Smt. U.P. Laxmamma (Petitioner[in][ LAOP]No.61of 2007),inall Ac.2-73 cents situatedin Sy.No.501/C1BofYemmiganur, was issued. A Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Actwaspublishedon05.12.1998.TheLandAcquisitionOfficerafterconducting enquiry, passed an Award determining the compensation inrespect of the above mentioned lands at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre,as against the claim of the respondents-land owners at the rate of Rs.30Lakhs per acre.They received the compensation under protest and underSection18of the Actfor paymentofsoughtareferencecompensation at the rate of Rs.30 Lakhs per acre.

4) Before the Reference Court, the respondents got[examined][ PWs]1to 6 and registered sale deeds dated 22.08.2003 and[06.03.2020][ were]markedasExs.XI and X2 respectively.A copy of the order dated13.02.2007 was marked as Ex.BI and no oral evidence[was][ adduced][ on]behalf of the Referring Officer.

5) Learned Reference Court after considering the matter[through][ the]impugned order determined the Market Value at the rateof Rs.3 Lakhswith deductions of1/3^'^ thereof per acre and awardedtheper acrestatutory benefits.

6) Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader for Appealsinter aliacontends that the learned Reference Court went wronginfixing theMarket Value at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per acre.It[is][ his][ submission][ that]the Land Acquisition Officer after taking into consideration[of][ the][ relevant]sale transactions had fixed the Market Value at the[rate][ of][ Rs.65,000/-]peracre,whichisjustandreasonable,Hesubmitsthattheenhancement of the Market Value from Rs.65,000/- to[Rs.2 Lakhs,][ that]too without any cogent material, is not sustainable.[He][ also][ submits][ that]the learned Reference Court went wrong in not properly[appreciating][ the]oral and documentary evidence and not examining the[matter][ in][ a proper]

perspective.Making the said submissions, the learned[Government]Pleader urges for allowing the appeals.

7) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents[made]submissions to sustain the order under challenge.He[contends][ that]though the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs[per][ acre,][ the]learned Reference Court while determining the Market[Value][ at][ the][ rate]of Rs.3 Lakhs per acre, opined that 1/3'"' has to be[deducted][ towards]developmentchargesforamenities,whichisnotjust,buttherespondents owing to financial difficulties had not[filed][ any][ appeals.]Hesubmits that the fixation of the Market Valueis based[on][ the][ orders]passed in AS No. 1544 of 1986, which is in respect[of][ the][ acquisition][ of]landsontheearlier occasion,morethanthree yearspriorto theNotification in respect of the lands in question.In[any][ event,][ he][ would]urge that the fixation of the Market Value warrants[no][ interference][ by][ this]theCourt.Making thesaid submissions,the learned counselforrespondents-claimants seeks dismissal of the appeals.

8) This Court has considered the submissions and perusedthematerial on record.

9) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the[only][ point][ that]arises for adjudication is “Whether the determination[of][ the][ Market][ Value]is not just or reasonable and as such warrants interferenceofthis Court?”

10) At the outset,it may be noted that there is no dispute[with]regardto issuanceof the Notification dated 21.11.1998undertheprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the purpose[of][ acquisition][ i.e.,]providing house sites to the weaker sections. As noted[earlier,][ the][ Land]Acquisition Officer fixed the Market Value of the subject[matter][ lands][ at]the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre, though the respondents[claimed][ an]amount of Rs.30 Lakhs per acre.Before the Reference[Court,][ though]PWs1 to 6 were examined the claim for Market Value[at][ the][ rate][ of]Rs.30 Lakhs per acre could not be established.No doubt,[Exs.XI][ and]X2 were marked which relate to sale transactions wherein[a][ small][ extent]of half cent of land and another small extent of Ac.0-03[cents][ were][ sold]attherateof Rs.20,000/-andRs.30,000/-per centrespectively.However, the said sale transactions are post notification[sales][ which][ took]place on 22.08.2003 and 06.03.2003, that is more than[four][ years][ after]issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification in respect of[the][ subject][ matter]lands under acquisition.Therefore, the said sale exemplars[cannot][ be]taken as comparable sales. Except the said documents,[the][ respondents]have not filed any other material. Be that as it may.

The learned Reference Court, which is required to determine11)the just and reasonable compensation for the acquired[lands][ while][ noting]the aspect that in respect of the acquisition of lands,[which][ are][ little][ away]from the lands in question, O.P.No.56 of 1996 was filed[and][ against][ the]

orderspassedbytheReferenceCourttherein,theHighCourtdetermined the compensation in A.S.No.1544 of 1986 at the rate of Rs. 3Lakhs feltit appropriate to fix the same.Keepinginviewthat thepurpose of acquisition is for providing house sites to the weaker sectionsof the society, development of roads, drainages, parks etc., the learnedReference Court opined that 1/3'^^ value of the land has to be deductedtowards the charges for amenities.Though the learned GovernmentPleader sought to impress upon that the Order under challenge is withoutany valid / cogent reasons, this Court on an appreciation[of material][ and]examination of the impugned order is not inclined to accept the same.

12) It is settled Law that in the absence of any sale transactionsin the vicinity of lands which are sought to be acquired,[the][ Reference]Court can take into consideration of the Award / Orders determining theMarket Valuein respect of the lands which are acquired under priornotifications for same purpose.

13) In ONGC Ltd., v Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and Others^the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as follows:

“11. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect ofthe lands acquired by the State, indisputably, the[market][ value][ therefor][ has]to be ascertained. Although, there exist different’modes for arriving at themarket value for the land acquired; the best method, however, asis wellknown would be the amount which a willing purchaser[of][ the][ land][ would]pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by[the][ deeds][ of][ sale.]Inthe absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take /

\

recourse to other methods viz. judgments and awards passed in respect ofacquisition of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.”

14) Thersfore, the fixation of the Market Value by the[Reference]Court on the basis of the earlier order of the High Court, whichisinrespect of the earlier acquisition of lands in the year 1995-96 cannot befoundfaultwith.Further, the learned Reference Court hadrightlydeductedl/S^"* value of the land towards developmental charges forproviding amenities. Such a deduction is legally permissible, valid, doesnotsuffer fromanylegalinfirmity andthe marketvaluefixedISi:Court on the basis of the earlier order of the High Court, whichisinrespect of the earlier acquisition of lands in the year 1995-96 cannot befoundfaultwith.Further, the learned Reference Court hadrightlydeductedl/S^"* value of the land towards developmental charges forproviding amenities. Such a deduction is legally permissible, valid, doesnotsuffer fromanylegalinfirmity andthe marketvaluefixedISi:reasonable.Therefore, the contentions advanced onbehalf of theappellants merits no appreciation.This Court see no reason to interferewith the order under challenge as there is no illegality or perversity.Thepoint is accordingly answered.appellants merits no appreciation.This Court see no reason to interferewith the order under challenge as there is no illegality or perversity.Thepoint is accordingly answered.

15) In the result, the Appeals fail and the same are accordinglydismissed. No costsdismissed. No costs Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAOJOINT REGISTRARJOINT REGISTRAR

To,

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division); Adoni, Kurnool District.

2. One CC to Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CC’s to Sri GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT]

4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P.

5. ThreeCD Copies

SAM

HIGH COURTDATED:27/03/2025

COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE

LAAS.Nos.350 & 347 of 2014; 493 of 2013 & 558 of2017

DISMISSING THESE LAND ACQUISITION APPEALSUITS

%

THURSDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 347 OF 2014

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer -cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, AdoniKurnool District.

...Appellant/Referring Officer

AND

K.Md. Sharif, S/o Late K.Shaik Saheb, D.No.7/93, Yemmiganur Village,Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

Appealfiledunder Section54of LandAcquisition Act of1894,against the order and Decree passed in O.P. No.59 of[2007][ on][ the][ file][ of]the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni dt.06-09-2010.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material papers inthe petition and upon hearing arguments of Mr. T S Rayalu GP for Appealsfor the Appellant, and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker for the Respondent.

/

1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed

2. That there be no order as to costs in this LAAS.

To,

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division): Adoni, Kurnool District.

2. Three CD Copies

SAM

HIGH COURT

NJS,J&TRR,J

SAM

DATED:27/03/2025

DECREE

LAAS.Nos.347 of 2014

o' 0 3 JUL 2025«»»tnntS«cti★

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 493 OF 2013

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue DivisionalOfficer, AdoniKurnool District.

...Appellant/Referring Officer

AND

Smt.K. Mahaboob Bee, W/o. Late K Nazeer Ali, Age:Major,R/o.H.No.1/282, M.G Colony, Yemmiganur Village,Yemmiganur Mandal,Kurnool District.

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894, against theorder and Decree passedin O.P. No.58 of 2007 on the file of the SeniorCivil Judge, Adoni, dated: 06-09-2010.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material papers inthe petition and upon hearing arguments of Mr. T S Rayalu GP for Appealsfor the Appellant, and none appeared for the Respondent.

1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed

2. That there be no order as to costs in this LAAS.

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division); Adoni, Kurnool District.

2. Three CD Copies

SAM

HIGH COURT

NJS,J&TRR,J

SAM

DATED:27/03/2025

DECREE

LAAS.Nos.493 of 2013

0 3 JUL 2025o^stijtrmtSjctijiv^^

DISMISSING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 350 OF 2014

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer -cum- Revenue Divisionai Officer, AdoniKurnool District.

AND

K.Md.Hussain,S/o.LateK.ShaikSaheb,D.No.5/52,age:MajorYemmiganur Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

...Respondents/Claimant

Appeaifiied under Section 54of LandAcquisitionActof1894,against the order and Decree passed in O.P. No.60 of[2007][ on the][ file][ of]the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni dt.06-09-2010.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material papers inthe petition and upon hearing arguments of Mr. T S Rayalu GP for Appealsfor the Appellant, and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker for the Respondent.

>4-

/

■f

I .- That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed , 2. That there be no order as to costs in this LAAS.

To 9

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division); Adoni, Kurnool[District.]

2. Three CD Copies

SAM

HIGH COURTNJS,J&TRR,J

SAM

DATED:27/03/2025

DECREE

LAAS.Nos.350 of 2014

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYAAND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR

RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NQ: 558 OF 2017

Between:

The Land Acquisition Office -Cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni,Kurnool District.

AND

...Appellant/Referring Officer

Smt.UP. Laxmamma, W/o Late UP.Narsaiah,Age: Major, D.No.2/54Yemmiganur Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District.

...Respondents/Claimant

Appealfiled under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894against the order and Decree passed in O.P. N0.6I of 2007on the file ofthe Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, dated:06-09-2010.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the groundsofappeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material papers inthe petition and upon hearing arguments of Mr. T S Rayalu GP for Appealsfor the Appellant, and none appeared for the Respondent.

1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed

2. That there be no order as to costs in this LAAS.

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division): Adoni, Kurnool[District.]

2. Three CD Copies

SAM

HIGH COURTNJS,J&TRR,J

SAM

DATED:27/03/2025

DECREELAAS.Nos.558 of 2017

^0 3 JIJL 2025 Jg)^■Sis£asi0^