The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum v. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act

B Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. B. Venkataswamy Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. ... Respondent/ Claimant LAAS No. 381 of 2014: Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 171 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. Venkata Swamy Reddy ^ LAAS No. 382 of 2014: ... Respondent/ Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 162 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. Sivanagireddy, LAAS No. 383 of 2014! ... Respondent/ Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 165 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Boreddy Venkataswamy Reddy, S/o. Siva Nagi Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. LAASNo.384 of 2014: ... Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 160 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Boreddy Kameswara Reddy, S/o. Venkataswamy Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. LAAS No. 385 of 2014; ... Respondent/ Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 170 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Siva Nagireddy LAAS No. 393 of 2014; ... Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 172 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ( Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Somula Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Subbareddy R/o Veerapuram, H/o. Guvvalakuntala Village Kothapally Mandal, Kurnool District ’ ’ ... Respondent/Claimant Counsel for the Appellant/s: Sri T.S. Rayalu, Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Appeals (In all the Appeals) Sri C. Prakash Reddy (in all the Appeals) The Court made the following common judgment: 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 Officer, Kurnool ...APPELLANT Sri Manapati Sreeramulu Counsel for the Appellant: AND ...RESPONDENT(S) I.Mr.T.S.Rayulu, Government Pleader for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Mr.C. Prakash Reddy 2 The 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 (Ml) Tank across Edduleru Vagu (Stream) 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 Name of the Claimant Extent of Land Survey Number OP No. B. Chandrasekhar Reddy

2.50+1.515+1.28=5.30 M. Rangaswamy Boreddy Siva Rami Reddy M. Sreeramulu B. Kameswara Reddy D. Venkateswarlu B. Nagi Reddy M. Nagaseshanna B. Venataswamy Reddy B. Rayindra Reddy B. Sreeniyasa Reddy B.V.Krishna Reddy B. Ramalinga Reddy B. Narayanamma B. Ramakrishna Reddy Somala Narayana Reddy

1.11 2010

0.81

2.50+1.29=3.79

2.97

2.10

1.12

0.17+1.42=1.59

0.80+1.35=2.15 0.80+1.30=2.10 0.80+1.30=2.10

1.28

1.25

1.52

3.41 608/2, 611/A1 611/B2/ 608/2 and 696/2 611/A1 699/1 and 700/2 648/2 and 697/1 648/2 and 697/1 648/2 and 697/1 SI. No. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4) The Land Acquisition Officer at the time of Award enquiry considered 139 sale transactions

06.02.2009

15.12.2011, discarded the same except SI.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 j 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 4 examined, and copies of the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.02.2008 and

01.10.2011 were marked as Exs.AI 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.BI and B2 respectively. The learned Reference Court formulated following points 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 discussing Ex.AI 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 market value learned Reference Court 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.AI 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 @ l/S"'^ 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.45,00C/- discarding 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 Ml 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 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 India Valliyammal and Another v Special Tahsildar (LA) and Another^ 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 ^(2011) 8 see 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.l. 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 resoondent-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. their respective lands were filed and denied the suggestion that there is 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.AI 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.AI 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 72 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.AI and denied the suggestion that the land covered under Ex.AI is not cultivable land. She also denied the suggestion that at the request of the respondents / claimants Ex.AI document was created nominally for getting more compensation. 15) In chief affidavit of RW 1, the details of various 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.BI 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 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.AI 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 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.AI sale deed and Ex.A2 sale deed dated

01.10.2011 any other material 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 Ml Tank. Ex.AI 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.AI is in respect of a small extent of land. In Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the 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.AI, merits no appreciation. 18) Taking Ex.AI 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.AI 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 1/3 deductions. Thus, it fixed the market value @ Rs.4,06,000/- per acre. ^ 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 Another^ 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 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.AI 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. ^ (2008) 14 see 745 14 Though the learned Government Pleader had raised a contention that the learned Reference Court went wrong in applying 1/3'"'^ 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 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 towards development charges is reasonable. Learned Reference Court in the present case, therefore, has not committed any irregularity in applying 1/3''^ deductions. 20) In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, the market value of the acquired lands is fixed at Rs.3.77.6D0/- per acre (rounded off) after applying 1/3 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. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURHTY JOINT REGISTRAR SEC OFFICER

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, Records) Kurnool District.(With

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (for Despatch of L.C. Records)

3. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 4. One CC to Sri C. Prakash Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. MSR HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS Nos. 184. 178. 191. 221. 224, 373. 374. 375. 379, 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385 and 393 of 2014 19 JUN 2025 *2: ^ . Current aection . Co ALLOWING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUITS IN PART WIHTOUT COSTS f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND 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 Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Sri Manapati Sreeramulu, S/o. M. Pedda Naganna, R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 159 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/ Claimant LAAS No. 178 of 2014: Between; The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Donthu Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ratnamaiah, R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/ Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 161 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. A LAAS No, 191 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Manapati Naga Seshanna, S/o. Naganna R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 164 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/ Claimant LAAS No. 221 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Manapati Rangaswamy, S/o. M. Naganna R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 157 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/ Claimant LAAS No. 224 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Boreddy Sivarami Reddy, S/o. Nagireddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant A Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 158 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. LAASNo, 373 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer B.V. Krishna Reddy, S/o. B. Venkataswamyreddy, R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 168 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. LAAS No. 374 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool Boreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. B. Sivanagireddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 163 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant LAASNo. 375 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND B. Ravindra Reddy, S/o. B. Venakata Swamy Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 166 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant LAAS No. 379 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Roreddy Rama Linga Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 169 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant LAAS No. 380 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer B. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. B; Venkataswamy Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 167 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant LAAS No. 381 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Boreddy Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. B. Venkata Swamy Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 171 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/ Claimant LAAS No. 382 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Boreddy Nagireddy, S/o. B. Sivanagireddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 162 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant LAAS No. 383 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal Kurnool District. Reddy, S/o. Siva Nagi Reddy ... Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in OP. No. 165 of 2012 of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. on the file LAAS No. 384 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Boreddy Karneswara Reddy, S/o. Venkataswamy Reddy R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 160 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant LAAS No. 385 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool AND ...Appellant/Referring Officer Boreddy Narayanamma, W/o. Late B. Siva Naqireddv R/o. Kothapally Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 170 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. LAAS No. 393 of 2014: Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer V AND Somula Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late Subbareddy R/o. Veerapuram, H/o. Guvvalakuntala Village, Kothapally Mandal, Kurnool District. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the order and decree dated 10/07/2013 passed in O.P. No. 172 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Claimant These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.S. Rayalu, G.P. for Appeals, for Appellant/Referring Officer in all appeals and of Sri C. Prakash Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Claimant in all appeals, this Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Land Acquisition Appeals Suits be and is hereby allowed in part.

2. ^at the market value be and is hereby is fixed as Rs.3,77,600/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy seven thousand six hundred only) per acre after deducting 1/3'“'^ deduction towards development changes. 3: That the respondents/Claimants be and are hereby entitled to all the statutory benefits on the market value so fixed from the date of Section 4 (1) Notification.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURHTY JOINT REGISTRAR iSc OFFICER SEC To

1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool District 2. Two CD Copies. MSR RAM HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS Nos. 184. 178. 191. 221. 224, 373. 374. 375, 379. 380. 381. 382, 383. 384. 385 and 393 nf 9niA 'I 19 JUN 2025 Current deciion . ^ ALLOWING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUITS IN PART WITHOUT COSTS