Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
(1) 4(1) Notification Dated 24.10.2003 vs State Of Kerala And Another2 on 16 March, 2026
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
And
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos. 213, 210, 211, 214, 216, 217,
218, 219, 220, 223, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290 & 298 of
2018 And
I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT and ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)
Introductory:-
(i) These batch of appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894, arising out of a batch of references in terms of Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, traceable to Award No.14 of 2005
Roc.No.A.100/2003 passed by the Special Tahsildar(LA), Jangareddigudem
dated 28.02.2005 under Section11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for
short referred as 'the Act'] pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, invoking urgency of the provisions under Land
Acquisition Act, dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, which
was approved in the proceedings of West Godavari Collector vide
ROC.G3/5885/2003 dated 20.10.2003, and it was published in A.P. Gazette
Extraordinary No.29 dated 24.10.2003, and notification was also published
in local newspapers, Eenadu and Eluru Times.
2
(ii) I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by appellant in LAAS.No.281 of 2018
under Order-41 Rule-27 of CPC seeking permission to submit additional
evidence.
2. The details of the land acquired, compensation awarded claimant
wise and respective proceedings before the Reference Court with the
appeal Numbers before this Court are as follows:-
Sl. L.A.A.S L.A.O.P Claimant Name Land R.S.No. Compensation Compensatio
No. No. No. Extent Awarded by n awarded by
L.AO Referral
Court
1. 220/2018 -Claimant 947/2012 I.SAILAJAKUMARI Ac.6.98 1/9B Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
298/2018 -State cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.110000/- Rs.300000/-
p.a p.a
(For Bamboo)
Rs.301/-per tree Rs.3000/-p.
(For Palm oil) tree
Nil ( For Coconut) Rs.3000/-p.
tree
2. 210/2018-Claimant 950/2012 G.UDAYKUMAR Ac.3.16 52/2B Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
285/2018 - State cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.110000/- Rs.300000/-
p.a(For Bamboo) p.a
Nil(For Rs.1000/-p.
Eucalyptus trees) tree
3. 211/2018 -Claimant 951/2012 G.RAMESHKUMAR Ac.0.84 52/3B Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
282/2018 - State cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.110000/- Rs.300000/-
p.a (For Bamboo) p.a
Nil (For Rs.1000/-
Eucalyptus trees) p.tree
4. 213/2018 - Claimant 949/2012 D.R.JAYALAKSHMI Ac.6.98 1/9B Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
286/2018 - State cents
(For Land) p.a
Rs.110000/-p.a Rs.300000/-
(For Bamboo) p.a
Rs.301/-p. tree Rs.3000/-p.
(For Palm oil) tree
Nil ( For Coconut) Rs.3000/-p.
tree
3
5. 214/2018 - Claimant 952/2012 P.SUBBARAO Ac.1.00 1/9A Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
284/2018 - State cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.237/-p.tree Rs.3000/-p.
(For palm oil) tree
Nil(For Rs.1000/-
Eucalyptus trees) p.tree
6. 216/2018 - Claimant 945/2012 V.SUBBARAJU Ac.4.27 1/2 Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
289/2018 - State cents (ForLand) p.a
Rs.1416/-p.tree Rs.3000/-p.
(ForCoconut) tree
Nil(ForCocoa Rs.1000/-
trees) p.tree
7. 217/2018 -Claimant 953/2012 A.PARVATHAMMA Ac.1.79 53/5A2 Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
290/2018- State cents (For Land) p.a
Ac.1.19 53/5B Rs.1416/- tree Rs.3000/-p.
cents (For Coconut) tree
Ac.2.98
cents
TOTAL
8. 218/2018 -Claimant 944/2012 V.V.RAMAKRISHNA Ac.5.00 1/2 Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
281/2018- State M RAJU cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.1416/- Rs.3000/-p.
p.tree (For tree
Coconut)
Nil(For Cocoa Rs.1000/-
trees) p.tree
Rs.82025/- Rs.100000/-
(For Bore well)
9. 219/2018 - Claimant 948/2012 K.NJYOTHI Ac.6.98 1/9B Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
283/2018 - State cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.110000/- Rs.300000/-
p.a. (For p.a
Bamboo)
Rs.301/-p. tree Rs.3000/-p.
(For palm oil) tree
Nil(For Coconut) Rs.3000/-p.
tree
10. 223/2018 - Claimant 946/2012 R.AMANGATAYAR Ac.4.51 1/8A Rs.57000/-p.a Rs.350000/-
287/2018 - State U cents (For Land) p.a
Rs.90000/-p.a Rs.250000/-
(For Eucalyptus p.a
tree)
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to
as and how they are referred before the Reference Court.
4
4. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the State/Land
Acquisition Officer and Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants.
5. References made in terms of Section 18 of the Act were taken on file
as LAOPs mentioned in above table by the Referral Court and they were
decided under Common Judgment dated 29.03.2018 by the I Additional
District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred as 'the Referral
Court').
6. Feeling dissatisfied by the decree and judgement passed by the
learned Referral Court, both the claimant and the Referral Officer filed the
appeals. The details of the appeals connected to the LAOPs are mentioned
in the above table.
7. Common arguments are advanced by the both counsel on record in
respect of all the (20) matters. Since the matters substantially involving
similar questions of fact and law, barring the deference as to the extent of
land acquired and trees available on lands claimant-wise, these appeals are
now answered by this common Judgement.
Facto Matrix:-
8. [i] Land covering various Survey Numbers including R.S.Nos.1/2,
1/8A, 1/9A, 53/5A2 etc., of Vallampatla Village of T. Narasapuram Mandal,
West Godavari District in an extent of 105.79 cents was acquired for
foreshore submersion area under Yerra Kalava Reservoir project for public
5
purpose, invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 (4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act.
[ii] The Land Acquisition Officer after obtaining registration
statistics in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition and on inspection of
the lands under acquisition as well as the lands covered by the sales
transactions fixed the market value. He has considered the sales of the
year 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and observed that lands involved in
acquisition are being cultivated with wet paddy, sugar cane, cashew nut and
mango gardens, coconut with coco as inter crop. Bamboo garden and oil
palm gardens with availability of bore wells in respect of certain lands.
[iii] Taking into consideration his discrete enquiries and the sale
transactions etc., fixed the rate of land @Rs.57,000/- per acre along with
statutory benefits i.e., 30% solatium etc.. In respect of certain lands
consent Award was passed by awarding @Rs.1,00,000/- per acre inclusive
of all benefits, whereas some land owners like the present claimants,
demanded for higher compensation and refused to give consent, hence, the
award under challenge is passed, observing that the concerned authorities
have fixed the abnormal rates for certain lands of Bamboo garden etc., and
that the excessive claim is made by the claimants. The Land Acquisition
Officer fixed the price at Rs.57,000/- towards market value of the land and
Rs.1,10,000/- per acre for Bamboo garden and at the rate of Rs.90,000/-
6
per acre for the lands where Eucalyptus trees are existing observing that
the rates were fixed after pursuing the rates suggested by the Forest and
Horticulture Departments.
[iv] After conducting enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer passed the
Award No.14 of 2005. Since the same is not satisfactory to the claimants,
References were made to the Referral Court in terms of Section 18 of the
Act and the impugned orders came to be passed by the learned Referral
Court. The details of the compensation awarded by the Referral Officer and
the Referral Court are shown in the table mentioned above. The Referral
Court awarded compensation for palm oil tree @Rs.3000/-, coconut tree
@Rs.3000/-, Eucalyptus @Rs.1000/-. Feeling dissatisfied by the award
and decree of referral Court both the claimants and the Referral officer are
before this Court filing appeals questioning the sustainability of the award of
the Referral Court.
Arguments in the Appeal:-
For the claimants:-
9.
(i) The Land Acquisition Officer simply stated that Registration statistics
of the vicinity of the lands are gathered from Sub-Registrar's
Office, Chintalapudi, but the date of proceedings etc., are not
shown.
7
(ii) In the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer observed that the lands
are being cultivated with wet paddy, sugar cane, cashew nut and
Mango gardens, coconut with coco as inter crop; bamboo gardens
and oil palm gardens also raised and there is availability of bore
well in certain lands, but these aspects are not considered, while
granting the compensation.
(iii) Without considering the required parameters, the compensation is
fixed arbitrarily at Rs.57,000/- per acre and the enhancement is
also made mechanically by Referral Court.
(iv) Land Acquisition Officer failed to consider the legal and practical
aspect etc.. The learned referral Judge thought that he is sitting in
appeal over awarded of Land Acquisition Officer as appellate
authority and observed that awarded is liable to be set aside,
which is incorrect.
(v) Various factors to be considered while dealing with the land
acquisition matters are stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
1
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
that they are not followed by both the Referral Officer and the
Referral Court.
1
(1988) 3 SCC 751
8
(vi) The crucial documents marked on behalf of the claimants under
Exs.A1 to A4 are not properly considered. Under Ex.A4, land in an
extent of Ac.1.50 cents is sold, it is relevant to note that, under
Ex.A4, there is reference to in agreement of sale dated
22.11.1999, consideration is mentioned as on the date of
agreement, whereas the sale is in the year 2003. Therefore, hike
in the market value should have been taken @20% for every year,
whereby the land value will come to Rs.6,30,000/- but the Referral
Court has erroneously considered the land value @Rs.3,50,000/-
only. The vendor under Ex.A4-Mr.U.Pullarao is examined as
PW.5, therefore, Ex.A4 stands proved.
(vii) The selection of sales and prices done by the Land Acquisition
Officer are arbitrary.
(viii) The learned Referral court having observing the lands are fertile
lands, having water supply and yielding commercial crops, ought
to have awarded a compensation at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre as
claimed instead of Rs.3,50,000/-.
(ix) The Land Acquisition Officer has not filed any material base before
the Court for fixing the compensation for the lands or trees.
(x) For the purpose of awarding compensation for bamboo and
Eucalyptus gardens report was called from the DFO, who gave
the report as Rs.2,14,000/- and Rs.1,38,000/- per acre. But the
9
Land Acquisition Officer discarded the valuation as not
reasonable, which is incorrect.
(xi) Evidence of PW.1 is not properly considered; in respect of bamboo
garden the yield will be Rs.60,000/- per acre per annum and
multiplier can be '15', then the entitlement comes to Rs.9,00,000/-
where the Referral Court granted only Rs.3,00,000/-. In respect
of Eucalyptus guardian also, each tree if cut would fetch Rs.4000/-
and there will be 1100 trees per acre where by the yield will be
Rs.4,40,000/- and if the multiplier '15' is applied, the compensation
will be more than awarded, whereas the Referral Court has
awarded only Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. Thus the claimants are
entitled for more compensation.
(xii) In respect of palm trees also the Referral Officer awarded Rs.300/-
per tree the Referral Court has enhanced Rs.3000/- but the
valuation of palm oil tree is Rs.6500/- per tree even for the year
2002. Therefore, the compensation awarded require
enhancement.
(xiii) In respect of coconut tree the Land Acquisition Officer, awarded
1415.83 and the Referral Court enhanced Rs.3000/- whereas the
Supreme Court decided that in a case reported in 2010 (13) SCC
384, on 18.10.2010 and awarded compensation for coconut tree
@Rs.2675/-, where the Land Acquisition made in the state of Tamil
10
Nadu. If the acceleration of price has taken into consideration,
from the date of acquisition mentioned in the said case to the date
of acquisition in the present case, being 1985 to 2003, the coconut
tree will fetch Rs.8000/- per tree. Therefore, the compensation
require enhancement for coconut trees.
(xiv) While determining the market value, the market value considered
for statutory purposes need not be the complete basis; however,
the same may be taken as a guiding factor to some extent .
(xv) It is not out of place to consider that, for the purpose of stamp duty,
parties may sometimes undervalue the property, and therefore the
actual market value may be higher than the value mentioned in the
agreement of sale or in the sale documents.
(xvi) With regard to the value of the trees, the palm tree value should
have been considered @Rs.6500/- which is shown under Ex.A24,
25, 26, and 27 and the payments are evidenced through proper
official records and bank payments, therefore, the same need not
be doubted. In respect of coconut tree also the same is
undervalued.
(xvii) Compensation awarded in respect of bamboo garden requires
enhancement; likewise in respect of trees also the compensation
shall be enhanced.
11
(xviii) The statutory benefits of additional market value @12% and 30%
solatium, should have been awarded on both the land as well as
the trees. Further, interest @9% p.a. on the enhanced amount for
one year and @15% till realisation require enhancement.
(xix) The State has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2018,
which is directed against the O.P.No.944 of 2012, eight (08)
documents are enclosed. Out of them, the seven (07) documents
are relating to the sales pertaining to the year 2002 to 2005. The
Land Acquisition officer did not choose to file these documents
before the Referral Court. Referral Court has clearly mentioned at
para 70 of the judgment that the Land Acquisition Officer did not
file any material before the Court, for the basis which, he fixed
compensation for the land as well as the trees. Now the present
application is filed under I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the year 2025, after
long lapse of time. Therefore, the effort of the land Acquisition
Officer for production of the additional evidence, at this appellate
stage, cannot be entertained.
For the State/Referral Officer:-
10. [i] Additional evidence produced vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS
No.281 of 2018 can be received as the same necessary for examining the
core questions in the controversy.
12
[ii] The Land Acquisition Officer has properly considered the
valuation of the trees, garden and the land value with reference to
comparative sales and the fixation of land value was properly done.
[iii] The enhancement of compensation by the learned Referral
Court under the impugned judgement is baseless and excessive.
[iv] Learned Referral Court seriously erred in awarding the
compensation for the land, trees as well as garden.
[v] The purpose of acquisition is for social welfare and for common
good. Therefore, the claimant cannot expect windfall benefits. The appeals
filed by the Referral Officer-State are fit to be allowed setting aside the
award of the Referral Court and confirming the award of the Referral Officer.
11. We have perused the entire material available on record.
12. Anxious and thoughtful consideration is given to the extensive
arguments submitted on both sides.
13. The points that arise for determination in this batch of appeals are -
1) Whether the additional evidence produced before this
appellate Court in i.A.no.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2018
cane be received?
2) What is the result of the I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS no.281 of
2018?
13
3) Whether the valuation of the land under the impugned
award and decree dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Referral
Court is proper? Or require any modification either by way of
enhancement or reduction?
4) Whether the value of the trees, Coconut and Palm oil, per
each tree and the bore well fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer or the Referral Court is proper? Or require any
modification?
5) What is the result of the appeals?
POINT NO.1 :-
14. [i] The appellant in LAAS no.281 of 2018 wants to introduce the
following documents through the present application vide I.A.No.1 of 2025:-
(1) 4(1) notification dated 24.10.2003
(2) consent award vide no.3/2004, dated 15.03.2004
(3) Letter vide No.DB/D.1/F.L.9 (C)/Vol.1/7 Rev. Dated
11.1.2005 addressed by the Executive Engineer,
Yerrakalava Project, Janagareddygudem to the Special
Tahasildar
(4) Letter vide Rc.No.2374/04-S2 dated 12.02.2005 (which
is subsequent to Ex.A10) addressed by the Divisional Forest
Officer to joint Collector.
14
(5) Letter vide Rc.no.A1/186/2004 dated 08.02.2005
addressed by the Assistant Director of horticulture, Eluru to
Special Tahsildar with regard to valuation.
(6) the statement of sale statistics of Vallampeta Village for
the period 01.01.200 to 31.10.2003 obtained from the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi
15. The objection for receiving the documents is that, they are very much
available and supposed to be in the custody of the referral
officer/applicant/appellant, what prevented from filing those documents
earlier is not known. Therefore, said documents cannot be introduced at
this belated stage.
16. The reason assigned by the applicant is that the Special Deputy
Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer, Yerrakaluva Project in in-charge basis
while reviewing pending Court cases with the concerned Government
Pleader, he advised that certain additional evidence is very much essential
to bring on record as additional evidence before this Court. Hence, the
present application is filed at the earliest point of time and opportunity.
17. Land Government Leader strenuously submitted that the additional
evidence can be received at appellate stage, if the same is relevant. The
test applicable is not the lapse of the party but it shall be the necessity for
determination of the issue by the court. Further, he has relied on the
15
decisions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malayalam Plantations
Limited Vs. State of kerala And Another2, vide para 16; Union of India
vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another3 vide paras 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,;
A.Andiswamy Chettiyar Vs. A.Subburaj Chettiar4vide para 16, State of
Karnataka and Another Vs. K.C.Subramanya and others5 vide paras 4
to 9.:-
18. The observations made in the above authorities are as follows :-
[i] In Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala (cited
supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed at para 16 as follows:-
"16. If any petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in an appeal, it is
incumbent on the part of the appellate court to consider at the time of hearing the
appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to
be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. It is trite to
observe that under Order 41 Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in
one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial court has illegally refused
the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence
sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of
due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable
the appellate court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of
similar nature."
[ii] In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, [cited supra] vide paras 47,
48, 49, 50, 51, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
2
(2010) 13 SCC 487
3
(2012) 8 SCC 148
4
(2015) 17 SCC 713
5
(2014) 13 SCC 468
16
"47. Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the
cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing
on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative
that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed.
48. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that an application for taking
additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of
right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it
is covered under either of the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory
provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into
consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in
the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in
the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before
the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to
pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the
conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory
provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must
record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However,
the application should not be moved at a belated stage.
Stage of consideration
49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the
time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or
the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues
involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the
relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an
opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends
upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be
adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce
judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional
evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining
the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent
lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the court. (Vide Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh
[1951 SCC 178 : AIR 1951 SC 193] and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr.,
Taxation [(1976) 3 SCC 28 : AIR 1976 SC 1053] .)
17
50. In Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur [(1931) 34 LW 76 : AIR 1931
PC 143] it was held : (LW pp. 86-87)
"... The provisions of Section 107, Civil Procedure Code, as elucidated by
Order 41 Rule 27, are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been
unsuccessful in the lower court to patch up the weak parts of his case and
fill up omissions in the court of appeal.
... Under Rule 27, clause (1)(b), it is only where the appellate court
'requires' it (i.e. finds it needful).... The legitimate occasion for the
exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a
party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but 'when on examining the
evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent'.
... It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a
party may move the court to supply the defect, but the requirement must
be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it
stands. Wherever the court adopts this procedure it is bound by Rule
27(2) to record its reasons for so doing and under Rule 29 must specify
the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its
proceedings the points so specified. ... the power so conferred upon the
court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised, and one
requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it
should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case."
(See also Indrajit Pratap Sahi v. Amar Singh [(1922-23) 50 IA 183 : AIR
1923 PC 128] .)
51. In Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh [1951 SCC 178 : AIR 1951 SC 193] this Court
held : (AIR pp. 195-96, paras 7-8)
"7. ... If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to
the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a
case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so
brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as
if it was non-existent. ...
8. ... The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is
dated 17-8-1942. The appeal was heard on 24-4-1942. There was thus
no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached
that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court
required to be filled up for pronouncing its judgment."
[iii] In a case between A. Andisamy Chettiar and A. Subburaj
Chettiar, [cited supra] the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 16
are as follows:-
18
"16. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8
SCC 148 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 362] this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 171, para 49)
"49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the
time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents
and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the
issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon
the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an
opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends
upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be
adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce
judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the
additional evidence sought to be adduced."
[iv] In State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya and ors. [cited
supra] the observations at para nos.4 to 9 are as follows:-
"4. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument and deem it fit
to reject it in view of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) which clearly states as follows:
"27. (1)(a)***
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his
knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at
the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) ***"
On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear that the party can
seek liberty to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, but the same
can be permitted only if the evidence sought to be produced could not be
produced at the stage of trial in spite of exercise of due diligence and that the
evidence could not be produced as it was not within his knowledge and hence was
fit to be produced by the appellant before the appellate forum.
5. It is thus clear that there are conditions precedent before allowing a
party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal, which specifically
incorporates conditions to the effect that the party in spite of due diligence could
not produce the evidence and the same cannot be allowed to be done at his
leisure or sweet will.
19
6. In the instant matter, the appellants are a public authority and have
sought to produce a road map which, it is unbelievable, was not within the
knowledge of the appellants indicating a road to the disputed land. Therefore, the
rejection of the application of the appellants to rely on the said map has rightly not
been entertained at the stage of first appeal. The impugned order [State of
Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya, Regular First Appeal No. 1765 of 2005, decided
on 26-7-2011 (KAR)] thus does not suffer from legal infirmity so as to interfere with
the same.
7. However, we deem it appropriate to observe further that the appellants
are the Government of Karnataka and, therefore, if it is of the view that the land in
question requires construction of a public road, no one can stop it from acquiring
the land in question. In fact, the appellants appear to have taken steps earlier for
acquisition of the land in question but what prevailed upon the appellants to drop
the acquisition proceeding is not quite clear.
8. The present appeal arises out of a simple suit of declaration and
confirmation of possession which was decreed in favour of the respondents and
was upheld by the High Court. The decree having been passed after contest,
cannot be interfered with unless the counsel could prove perversity in the finding
recorded concurrently by the courts below. It is clear that the appellants have
miserably failed to do so and, therefore, they cannot bank upon the equity and
good conscience of this Court beseeching interference with a contested decree
passed in favour of the respondents.
9. It is no doubt true that the court at times can exercise its due diligence
for taking the relevant aspects of the matter while exercising its discretion for
application of equity and good conscience. But, insofar as the appellants in this
appeal are concerned, that also is lacking as we fail to comprehend as to why the
appellants dropped the acquisition proceeding if it thought that the land in question
was so essential and viable for using it as a public road.”
19. In the award under challenge, there is formal reference to 4(1)
Notification dated 24.10.2003 and also collection of information from various
authorities and the date as to comparative sales etc., relied on by the
20
Referral Officer. Now the proposed documents are nothing but
supplementation of the material to some extent part of the record. But why
these documents very much available during the pendency of the trial, are
not produced before the Referral Court is not even whispered. The
deponent narrates that at the earliest opportunity the documents are being
filed. The reference was of the year 2005 and the LAOPs are of the year
2012 and now the appeals are of the year 2018. The application is filed in
the year 2025. So the contention that the documents are filed at the earlier
opportunity cannot be accepted.
20. Upon application of test of due diligence, no merit is found in the
contention of the applicant. Further, on considering the test of necessity
and whether this Court will not be in a position to decide the matter in the
absence of material, now being sponsored in I.A. No.1 of 2025, this Court
finds that even in the absence of the material enclosed to I.A.No.1 of 2025
in LAAS No.281 of 2018, this Court is not handicapped and the matters can
be decided. Therefore, upon application of any test contemplated under
either Order -41 Rule -27 of CPC or in terms of the guidance in the
precedents cited, the prayer for receiving additional evidence found not
convincing. Hence, the point No.1 framed is answered accordingly against
the petitioner and hence, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2018 is liable
to be dismissed.
21
Point No.2 :-
21. In the result, I.A. No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2018 is dismissed.
Point No.3:-
A. LAND VALUE:-
Precedential Guidance:-
22. [i] Parameters for determination of the land value in land
acquisition matters are dealt by the Honourable Apex Court in Shaji
Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.6, vide para 3, the observations are as
follows:-
“3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of
valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While
fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of
valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as
capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable
sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for
determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing
purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open
market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the
market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are
certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those
factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the
land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale
must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been
executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under
Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the6
(2001) 7 SCC 650
22vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be
similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered
by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are
satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by
the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a
dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land
covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to
proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is
reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the
acquired land. ….”
[ii] The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Shanti
Bhushan (D) through LR’s and others and State of U.P. and others 7,
observed in paras 21 to 23 as follows:-
“21. In view of Article 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, the stamp duty payable
on a conveyance will be in accordance with the market value of the subject
property on the date of the conveyance unless the consideration shown therein is
more than the prevailing market value. A useful reference can be made to a
decision of this Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain
Jewellers5. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said decision read thus:
“18. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that as per
Section 17 of the Act, the market value has to be taken into consideration
because Section 17 stipulates that all the instruments chargeable with duty
and executed by person of India shall be stamped before or “at the time of
execution”. The word “execution” has been defined in Section 2(12) of the
Act which says that “execution” used with reference to the instruments, mean
“signed” and “signature”. Therefore, it shows that the document which is
sought to be registered has to be signed by both the parties. Till that time the
document does not become an instrument for registration. A reading of
Section 2(12) with Section 17 clearly contemplates that the document should
be complete in all respects when both the parties should have signed it with
regard to the transfer of the immovable property. It is irrelevant whether the
matter had gone in for litigation.
19. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between an
agreement to sell and a sale. Stamp duty on a sale has to be assessed on
the market value of the property at the time of the sale, and not at the time of
the prior agreement to sell, nor at the time of filing of the suit. This is evident
from Section 17 of the Act. It is true that as per Section 3, the instrument is to
be registered on the basis of the valuation disclosed therein. But Section 47-7
2023 SCC Online SC 489
23A of the Rajasthan (Amendment) Stamp Duty Act contemplates that in case it
is found that properties are undervalued then it is open for the Collector
(Stamps) to assess the correct market value. Therefore, in the present case
when the registering authority found that valuation of the property was not
correct as mentioned in the instrument, it sent the document to the Collector
for ascertaining the correct market value of the property.”
22. Ultimately in paragraph 22, this Court held thus:
“22. In this background, if we construe Section 17 read with Section 2(12) then
there is no manner of doubt that at the time of registration, the registering authority
is under an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at that time, and should
not go by the value mentioned in the instrument.”
(emphasis added)
23. Hence, when a sale deed is presented for registration, the registering authority
must ascertain the correct market value of the property subject matter of the
document on the date of execution of the document. The stamp duty is payable on
the basis of such market value and not on the consideration mentioned in the
document. If the consideration mentioned is more than the market value, the stamp
duty will be payable on the consideration shown. Moreover, the market value
mentioned in the agreement for sale or the market value prevailing on the date of
the agreement or the market value prevailing on the date on which the bargain was
struck is of no relevance for deciding the stamp duty. The relevant market value is
the one which prevails on the date of execution of the conveyance. Therefore, we
have no manner of doubt that the appellants were under an obligation to pay stamp
duty calculated on the market value of the sale deed property on the date of
execution of the sale deed.”
[iii] Further, with regard to the scope with which the land acquisition
proceedings are to be dealt with and various factors to deal with the
valuation of the land under Land Acquisition Act as well as the scope and
ambiguity of powers of the Referral Court are addressed by the Honourable
Apex Court in Chimnlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Poona And Another8, paras 3 and 4 reads as follows:-
“3. Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under
acquisition it is necessary to make some general observations. The
compulsion to do so has arisen as the trial court has virtually treated the
award rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer as a judgment under appeal8
(1988) 3 SCC 751
24and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to same
extent. The true position therefore requires to be capsulized.
4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal
against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by
the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and
proved before the court.
(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a
judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the
reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the
material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court
unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in
appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or
affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as
if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and
determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered
for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the
court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be
taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the
crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of
publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a
reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing
to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value
reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances
are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.)
(9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very
proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser
to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development
prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be
identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the
price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land
under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and
minus factors vis-Ã -vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and
the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by
loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and
unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a
common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We
may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
25
1. smallness of 1. largeness of area
size
2. proximity to a 2. situation in the
road interior at a
distance from the
road
3. frontage on a 3. narrow strip of land
road with very small
frontage compared
to depth
4. nearness to 4. lower level
developed requiring the
area depressed portion
to be filled up
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from
developed locality
6. level vis-Ã -vis 6. some special
land under disadvantageous
acquisition factor which would
deter a purchaser
7. special value
for an owner of
an adjoining
property to
whom it may
have some
very special
advantage
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each
case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the
best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the
size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared
with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while
a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to
be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space,
plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested
money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor
can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an
appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent
to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting
out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether
it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and
whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be
locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all
these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge
must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed
with common sense.”
26
Evidence, Reasoning and Findings:-
23. [i] The contention of the claimants is that the evidence of PWs 1
to 4 is crucial and the documents under Exhibit A1 to A4 vindicates the
contention of the claimants as to the land value, which can be the basis for
arriving at just an adequate compensation in respect of the lands acquired.
[ii] PW.1 – G.Rama Varma is Power of attorney holder of
claimant/s in O.P.Nos.58,59, 60, 61 of 2005. Likewise, PW.2- G.Vijaya
Rama Raju Power of Attorney holder of claimant/s in O.P.Nos.944, 945, 950
and 951 of 2012; and PW.3-P. Sibba Rao is claimant in O.P.Nos. 952 of
2012;
[iii] PW4-Ch. Venkata Subramanyam is a purchaser of the land
during the year 2012 in R.S.No.394/2B2 of Mathannagudem village. He
stated that he has purchased the land in an extent of Ac.2.41 cents for a
consideration of Rs.8,05,000/- and that there is hike in the land value,
hence, the land fetch @Rs.8,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.
[iv] PW5- U.Pulla Rao stated that he owned the land in an extent of
Ac.1.50cents in R.S.No.595/1 in Taduvai village. He claimed that he sold
the land @Rs.3,50,000/- per acre and copy of the sale deed is marked
under Ex.A4. It is pertinent to note that here itself the distance between
Vellampatla village, the land under acquisition and Tadavi village is at about
10 to 15 kilometres as admitted by him.
27
[v] PW6 – I.Vijay Krishna Raju was examined to show that he
owned Ac.2-00cents of land in Vallampatla village and there is 60 oil palm
trees in an acre and each tree will yield 300 Kgs per year. The value of One
KG is Rs.3.50p in the year 2003. As on the date of he giving evidence, it is
@6.50p. Coconut garden can also have 60 trees per acre and each tree
will yield 100 coconuts per annum and annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-
and the value of coconut tree is around Rs.2500/-
[vi] PW.7-G.Baburao evidence is in the same lines of PW5. He has
admitted that he do not file documents to show that he had lands in
Vallampatla village.
[vii] PW8- Ch.Rama Raju stated that he owned AC.3–00 acres of
land in Vallamptala village. His evidence is also in same lines of PW5.
[viii] PW9- A. Durga Rao evidence is relied by claimants to indicate
that the Palm tree price paid to him, when trees are cut for by the A.P.
Transco for the purpose of laying high tension wires across the land. He
has stated that a compensation of Rs 6,500/- per each tree was paid. He
has relied on the copy of the proceedings issued by A.P. Transco in the year
2001 and the certificate issued by Andra Bank, Jangareddigudem branch
marked as Exhibits A24 and A25.
[ix] PW10-A.Srinivasa Rao stated that in respect of his lands also
for laying high tension wires, palm trees were cut and a compensation of
28
Rs.6500/- was paid. He has relied on Exs.P26 and P27, to show the
documents issued by the department.
[x] PW.11-K.Satyanrayan, the then Forest Range Officer stated
that in respect of R.S.Nos.1/9B, 52/2B, 52/3B of Vallampatla village he
made visits and the claimants used to cut bamboo plantations, after
obtaining necessary permission from the Forest Department.
[xi] Ex.A1 is the sale deed dated 16.10.2002, the market value is
shown @Rs.2,61,000/- per acre and the value of the palm trees shown
@Rs.500/- . The land is in Vallamphatla village covered by R.S.No.1/9.
[xii] Ex. A2 is the sale deed dated 30.12.2012. Land is in an extent
of Ac.2.41 cents for Rs.8,05,000/- and the land is situated in
Mathannagudem village,1530 of Eucalyptus trees also sold along with the
land.
[xiii] Ex.A3 is the sale dated 20.01.2003, the land is situated in
Vallampattla village vide Sy.No.48/3 and the land sold is 0.06cents for the
value of Rs.1,46,000/-.
[xiv] It is submitted for the claimants that, Ex.A4 is a sale deed
preceded by an agreement of sale dated 22.11.1999 and the land is
covered by Sy.No.595/1, Thaduvai Village and the land value is shown
@Rs.3,.50,000/- per acre. The argument in respect of this document is that
29
PW5 deposed about the said document and the land value is around
Rs.3,50,000/- in the year 1999, whereas the acquisition is in the year 2003.
Therefore, there must be increase in price, whereas the argument on behalf
of the Land Acquisition Officer/the government is that the land is situated in
15 kilometers in a different village and the values cannot be the basis. In
the award, the Land acquisition Officer referred about the valuation of the
lands under Part-3 of the award No.14 of 2005, dated 28.2.2005. And in
respect of certain lands vide R.S.No. 1/9, 48/3, 107, 158/3, 153/9c etc., the
value of the land per acre is much higher than the value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer.
[xv] (a) RW.1-K.Peddi Raju, the referral officer stated that about
the necessity of acquisition, the procedure followed, obtaining of registration
statistics in the land value and the consent given by certain land owners for
acquisition. His evidence in specific is that acre 105.99 cents of land in
R.S.No.1/2, 1/8A,1/9A, 53/5A2 of Vellampatla village of T.Narasapuram are
similar in nature. Consent Award was passed paying a lumpsum amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre inclusive of all benefits under the Act, in respect of
the lands in Ac.63.09 cents. Further, he has stated that the rate fixed for
bamboo garden at Rs.2,14,473/- per acre and Rs1,38,171/- per acre for
Eucalyptus trees etc., are not justified and they are abnormal. Eucalyptus
trees, palm oil plants and coconut plants etc., are not giving any yielding as
on the date of notification. Therefore, the claims are in exaggeration. The
30
transaction shown by the petitioners are covered by small extents and they
are purposeful sales with a predetermined idea to get more compensation in
anticipation of acquisition. Hence, he is constrained to fix the value
@Rs.57,000 per acre and Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.90,000/- in respect of
bamboo Eucalyptus gardens with other statutory benefits.
(b) During the cross examination, RW 1 stated that, he prepared the
award. He has recorded the statements of claimants. The lands covered by
R.S.Nos.1/2, 1/8A, 1/9b,52/2B, 52/3B,53/5A2,53/5A2, 53/5B, in total 42.70
cents. The lands are red cotton soil, which is good for all commercial crops.
While fixing the value one has to consider the sales statistics, income and
the rental value of the land. The award is not reflecting the same. As per
the award the lands are being cultivated Wet Paddy, palm oil, bamboo
garden, coconut, Eucalyptus trees and at the time of inspection the crops
were existing in the lands. He did not examine or recorded the statements
of any persons concerned with the sales statistics. He do not know whether
there is practice to quote lesser prices in order to minimize the stamp duty
for sales transactions. The stamp duty will be normally paid on the basis of
basic value Register. The basic value at Registrar office is the guidelines to
the Registration department and the same is not final for assessing the
market value of the lands. He has ignored the value mentioned in Sl.no.4 of
2002 and Sale no.3 of 2003, where the value of the land mentioned
@Rs.2,93,500/- per acre and Rs.1,50,00/- per acre respectively. He has
31
not examined any person relating to Sale No.4 of 2022 and Sale No.3 of
2003. He has not taken into consideration the probable escalation of prices
in the area and the District Forest officer gave report for price in respect of
bamboo tress @Rs.2,14,473 per acre, but as per the award,
@Rs.1,10,000/- per acre is awarded but he did not call for any third party
opinion for deferring the value. He did not know whether the oil palm
garden got yielding within three years from the date of planting. He do not
know how many bunches of fruits will be the yielding to a palm oil tree. He
did not consider the income derived per each tree per year and did not
inquire about the lifespan of palm oil tree and one has to consider the
longitude of the tree and also yielding of each tree. While fixing the value,
he has not made any exercise to assess the compensation for coconut tree,
also basing on the lifespan and the yield per acre, per annum. He has no
idea about the income retched to a coconut tree per annum. He did not
prepare any mediator’s report at the time of inspection. He has denied the
compensation for some coconut plants, because of the age of the plants
being under aged. However, admitted that there is no record to show the
age of coconut plant. He did not call for the report from the Horticulture
department as to age of the plants and whether they deserve any
compensation. He has denied the compensation for some of the coconut
trees, since they are ripe yielding. He has no personal knowledge about the
agriculture.
32
24. After marshalling evidence, the learned Referral Court found that
observations of the learned Land Acquisition Officer are unfounded,
incorrect and arbitrary in awarding of compensation @Rs.1,10,00/- per acre
for bamboo garden, without taking note of yielding or longevity of the
bamboo garden is not correct.
25. Further the evidence of PW.11- Forest Range Officer vindicates that
the claimants used to obtain permission for cutting the bamboo plant; the
same suggests that there was existence of bamboo plants, as per the
DFOs’ report the value is Rs.2,14,000/- per acre but the Land Acquisition
Officer awarded only Rs.1,10,000/- is arbitrary matter. In respect of
Eucalyptus trees garden also awarding Rs.90,000/- per acre by the Land
Acquisition Officer, found as baseless by the Referral Court.
26. The referral Court upon considering both oral and documentary
evidence, enhanced the following:-
(a) The land value from Rs.57,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/-.
(b) Eucalyptus garden from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre
(O.P.Nos.945 and 946 of 2012).
(c) Bamboo garden from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre
(OP.No.947, 948 of 2012)
(d) Coconut trees from Rs.1415.83 to Rs.3000/- per tree
(Commonly for all wherever the trees exists).
(e) Coco trees ‘nil’ to Rs.1000/- per tree (O.P.No.944 of 2012)
(f) Bore well from Rs.82,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (o.p.No.944 of
2012)
33
(g) Palm oil tree from Rs.300/- to Rs.3000/-. per tree (Commonly
for all wherever the trees exists).
27. The argument in the appeals for the Referral officer, on behalf of the
State is that wherever the compensation is awarded for the lands and trees,
the enhancement is not necessary, the claimants are entitled for one
composition i.e., either for the land if is agricultural land or if it is to be a
garden or thope, for compensation on capitalization method, but not for
both. Therefore, calculating the compensation for both, Eucalyptus garden
and the land, does not arise. For awarding compensation on capitalization
method, the annual yield and income from a respective tree are the garden
and applying appropriate multiplier is necessary. Clear evidence is not
placed before the Referral Court. The Referral officer has awarded
compensation both trees and garden in the award itself, therefore, now the
argument of the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the
State/Special Deputy Collector (LA)/appellant, awarding of compensation on
both heads is not acceptable. Since the capitalisation method is not
resorted to by recording appropriate evidence, it can be considered that the
Land Acquisition Officer on physical inspection and on information, as
deposed by him found it proper that the valuation is to be made on both
counts in his best judgment. Therefore, the argument that there cannot be
valuation on two counts is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Particularly for the reason, the initial award itself is
indicating the entitlement for compensation both lands, tree and garden.
34
Therefore, the scope of enhancement shall be in respect of both and
justification thereof. The reasoning adopted by the Referral Court for
adopting the enhancement is found logical.
28. Upon considering the evidence, reasoning given by the Referral Court
with reference to the evidence on record and also the admissions of the
Referral Officer, we are of the considered view that the value fixed in
respect of the land as well as the garden of the bamboo and Eucalyptus
trees, by the Referral Court found reasonable and does not require any
interference. Consequently, the prayer of the claimants for enhancing the
compensation as well as the prayer of Referral Officer/State for reduction
does not deserve any interference. Point No.1 framed is answered
accordingly. Entitlement of the claimants would be for the land
@Rs.3,50,000/- per acre and in respect of garden at the rate fixed by the
Referral Court in respect of Bamboo end Eucalyptus garden viz.,
Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively.
Point No.4:-
29. The compensation fixed by the Learned Referral Court in respect of
Trees and bore well is as follows:-
1) Coconut tree @Rs.3,000/- per tree
2) Coco Tree @Rs.10000/- per tree
3) Palm oil Tree @Rs.3000/- tree
35
4) Borewell tree @Rs.1,00,000/-
5) Eucalyptus Tree @Rs.1000/- tree
30. In a case between Petronet CCK limited Vs. ND Additional District
Judge9, vide Civil Revision Petition No.100/2012 the Hon’ble Kerala High
Curt while considering the calculation of compensation with reference to life
span of the coconut trees etc., aspects, based on relevant agricultural
practices, considered the value of coconut tree @Rs.5000/-.
31. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case between
G.Narayanamma and Special Deputy Collector (LA)10 considering the
compensation payable to fruit bearing trees, following the precedents of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in D.Eswara Naidu & Others Vs. The Special Deputy
Collector (LA) in Civil Appeal no.11355 of 2018 fixed the value of
pomegranate tree at Rs.3000/- per tree.
32. The evidence of PW.9 shows that in respect of oil palm trees
Rs.6500/- was awarded as compensation and he has relied on Ex.A24 and
Ex.A25. Likewise the evidence of PW.10 also shows that the compensation
was paid to PW.10 in respect of trees under Ex.P26 and Ex.P27.
Reference to Ex.P24 show that the value assed by the Revenue Officer
@Rs.3,900/- for oil palm tree. These documents are disputed by Referral
Officer stating that they are not properly proved.
9
2014 Supreme (online) (KER) 12754
10
2025 Supreme (online)(AP)2155: 2025 APHC 9650
36
33. Upon considering the evidence on record, and the judicial precedents
with regard to the payment of compensation for the trees, fruit-yielding trees
etc., and geographical conditions of the area now in question, we are of the
considered view that –
(i) the compensation payable in respect of coconut trees, can be
enhanced to Rs.4000/- as against Rs.3000/- fixed by the learned Referral
Court @Rs.3,500/- for the palm oil trees as against the value fixed
@Rs.3000/- by the Referral Court.
(ii) in respect of Eucalyptus trees, palm trees, bore wells etc., the
value of the fixed by the Referral Court found reasonable and does not
require any interference.
(iii) the counting of trees shall be not as per the claim of the
claimants but as noted by the Referral officer in the Award. Point no.4 is
answered accordingly.
Point No.5:-
34. In view of the above discussion made and the conclusions drawn
under points No.3 and 4, –
(i) No merits are found in the appeals filed by the Referral officer.
Hence, they are liable to be dismissed.
37
(ii) In respect of the appeals filed by the claimants, where the
coconut trees and palm oil trees are there, the value fixed by the Referral
Court require enhancement for coconut trees from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/-
per tree and for the palm oil trees from Rs.3000/- to Rs.3,500/- per tree.
(iii) Except the enhancement in respect of these two category
trees, the award passed by the Referral Court and the decree followed
thereof in respect of the other reliefs granted shall stand confirmed.
35. In the result,
[i] I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2025 is dismissed.
[ii] the appeals filed by the Referral Officer (Land Acquisition
Officer) vide LAAS Nos. 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290 and
298 of 2018 are dismissed.
[iii] the appeals in LAAS Nos.210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218,
219, 220 and 223 of 2018 are partly allowed, enhancing the
compensation granted in respect of coconut trees from Rs.3000/- to
Rs.4000/- per tree and the palm oil trees from Rs.3000/- to Rs.3,500/-
per tree.
[iv] The counting of trees shall be not as per the claim of the
claimants but as noted by the Referral officer in the Award.
38
[v] Except the enhancement in respect of the above two
categories of trees, the Award and decree dated 29.03.2018 passed by
the Referral Court in respect of the other reliefs granted shall stand
confirmed.
[vi] There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
__________________________________
JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Date:16 .03.2026
Pnr
39
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos. 213, 210, 211, 214, 216, 217,
218, 219, 220, 223, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290 & 298 of
2018 And
I.A.No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.281 of 2018
Dt.16.03.2026
Pnr
