THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOS. 415, 433, 436, 437, 438 AND 439 of 2012

COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

As these appeals arise out of the same award and as common issue is involved in all these appeal suits, they are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
For the public purpose of formation of an Ayacut road from Konidedu to Maddur via Bhupanapadu, a notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 09.04.1999 to acquire the lands of certain persons. The land of the respondents was also sought to be acquired for the said public purpose under the aforesaid notification. The total extent of the land covered by the said notification which is sought to be acquired is Ac.21.71 cents. Accordingly, the land of the respondents was also acquired for the aforesaid public purpose. Possession of the said land was also taken on 30.01.2001. Thereafter, the award bearing No.31/2000-2001 dated 30.01.2001 came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed compensation for the land that was acquired at Rs.22,000/- per acre for rain fed dry lands and Rs.33,000/- for Kallam lands.
The land owners are not satisfied with quantum of compensation fixed for the lands that were acquired. So, they made a protest. Therefore, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court and the said references came to be numbered as Original Petitions on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.
The claimants have examined R.W-1 and R.W-2 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2 documents to substantiate their case. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the State. However, Ex.A-1 was marked by consent.
Learned Senior Civil Judge/reference Court by a common order dated 19.11.2009 enhanced the compensation from Rs.22,000/- per acre to Rs.60,000/- for the rain fed dry lands and from Rs.33,000/- to Rs.70,000/- for the Kallam lands.
Challenging the validity of the aforesaid common order, the State is before this Court by way of filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Act.
Learned Government Pleader would submit that the compensation was erroneously enhanced by the reference Court

without any valid basis. It is further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the amount of compensation for the lands that were acquired as per the rates prevailing in the vicinity and the reference Court has erroneously enhanced the said compensation. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the same.

Per contra, Sri K. Ratanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents would contend that the learned Senior Civil Judge has taken into consideration the relevant evidence i.e. Ex.B2 certified copy of the common order passed in O.P.No.40 of 2005 and batch on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and on the basis of the said evidence the compensation for the lands that were acquired was adequately enhanced. Therefore, he would submit that the contention of the State that the compensation was enhanced without any valid basis and evidence is not correct. Therefore, he would contend that the impugned order of the reference Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in these appeals and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
He would also submit that when the State has questioned the said order in other batch of appeals before this Court in Land Acquisition Appeal Nos.399 of 2012 and batch, relating to acquisition of other lands along with the present lands under the same notification, the Division Bench of this Court has already

dismissed the said appeals by a common order dated 12.05.2023 and in view of the said common order, that the present appeals are also liable to be dismissed.

As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, it is evident that in determining the quantum of compensation for the lands that were acquired, he placed reliance on Ex.B-2 - certified copy of the common order passed in O.P.No.40 of 2005 and batch on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. It is relevant to note that the award pertains to Ex.B-2 document was passed on 30.03.1999, whereas, the award in the instant cases came to be passed on 30.01.2001. In respect of the lands that were acquired under Ex.B-2 order, the civil Court enhanced the compensation in respect of the rain fed dry lands to Rs.60,000/- per acre from Rs.22,000/- per acre and to Rs.70,000/- per acre from Rs.33,000/ per acre in respect of Kallam Lands. Therefore, in view of Ex.B-2, the claimants are also entitled to the same amount of compensation for the lands that were acquired, as the same are also situated within the same vicinity and fetches the same value as that of the lands covered by Ex.B-2. Therefore, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has rightly awarded adequate amount of compensation by placing reliance on Ex.B-2. So, it cannot be said under any stretch of

reasoning that the compensation was enhanced without any valid basis and evidence.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned common order warranting interference of this Court. The impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it is not liable to be set aside.
It is also relevant to note that in respect of the other lands that were acquired under the same notification, this Court has already dismissed the appeals that were preferred by the State in Land Acquisition Appeal Nos.399 of 2012 and batch. In view of the said common order of this Court, dated 12.05.2023, passed in the above batch of appeals, these appeals are also liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in these appeals, shall stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 19.06.2023 ARR/KBN