Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Special Deputy Collector vs K.Bala Nagi Reddy on 18 July, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
I.A. No.2 of 2017 in LAAS Nos. 167, 168, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183,
184, 190, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 202, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 226, 227,
228, 232, 233, 234, 236, 252, 253, 254, 256, 259, 262, 284, 285, 293, 303,
318, 324, 325, 347, 348, 349, 353, 373, 375, 376, 377, 388, 390, 391, 394,
395, 396, 397, 399, 404, 442, 445, 446, 460, 461, 462, 465, 466, 475, 476,
478, 479, 480, 481, 485, 488, 489, 491, 514, 521, 524, 527, 528, 535, 538,
543, 549, 551, 552, 555, 556, 558, 566, 575, 576, 577, 578, 588, 590, 608,
613, 615, 622, 633, 635, 643, 644, 645, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 658, 659,
724, 764, 765, 885, 886, 890, 891, 892, 989, 1146, 1175 and 1176 of 2011
I.A No.1 of 2017 in LAAS Nos.253, 295, 297, 351, 389, 408, 443, 477 and
623 of 2011
I.A. No.6 of 2017 in LAAS Nos.250, 301, 312, 313, 531, 532, 625 and 729 of
2011
2
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) The State has filed a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order and decree made in a batch of Land Acquisition Original Petitions dated 26.02.2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. While disposing of the Land Acquisition Appeals, this Court has taken L.A.A.S.No.623 of 2007 as lead appeal filed against the orders in O.P.No.29 of 2007. This Court has disposed of the batch of Appeals, vide judgment dated 28.04.2016, fixing the market value by categorising the land acquired into three categories as follows: 1 2 3
Dry lands Lands irrigated through Lands which possess irrigated through water drawn from the mining potentiality by rain-fed crops neighbours and also the reducing the market value lands cultivated fixed by reference Court at bugganala water and Rs.3,70,000/- and bore wells Rs.3,78,880/-respectively.
Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,91,999/- Rs.2,73,000/-
2. Aggrieved by the said order in decreasing the market value of the land acquired, the claimants have preferred SLP CC Nos.5228-5229 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was withdrawn by the claimants on 20.03.2017 after seeking leave to file review petitions 3 before the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted the claimants to file an application for review. The claimants have voluntarily withdrawn the SLPs before the Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.03.2017. I.A.No.2 of 2017 (LAAS MP No.907 of 2017) is filed to review the order in L.A.A.S.No.167 of 2011 dated 28.04.2016 by the claimants.
3. The brief facts of the case are that: A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') dated 24.02.2005 was published for acquisition of the land for the purpose of excavation of Owk Reservoir Complex, Stage-II of SRBC at Cherlopalli village, Owk Mandal by the Land Acquisition Officer-Special Deputy Collector, (LAO), Award No.25 of 2005-06 was passed on 27.02.2006.
The possession was taken on 27.02.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer has classified the lands into three categories (1) as rain-fed dry lands, (2) lands having mining potentially and (3) the lands having house site potentially, i.e., the lands adjacent to the village and he fixed the market value of these lands at Rs.46,000/- per acre and Rs.1,04,000/- per acre and Rs.1,04,000/- respectively. 4
4. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants herein have received the compensation on protest and requested the LAO to refer the award to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the award was referred to the Reference Court and the Reference Court has addressed all the appeals through a common order issued on 26.02.2010, albeit in an independent manner. The Reference Court has answered the reference and determined the market value to be Rs. 3,78,880 per acre, based on the judgment from the High Court dated 26.03.2007, in A.S. No. 1748 of 2005 and similar cases. This decision pertains to land acquired in Sunkesula village for the same project by adopting the escalation method, i.e., 10% every year progressively from 1992 to 2005 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash (D) by LRs and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2004) 10 SCC 627. The learned Reference Court noted that:
"Under Award No.16 of 1992-93 (marked Ex B6) for the very same project have acquired the land in Sunkesula village having mining potentiality and the market value was fixed by the LAO at Rs.80,000/- per acre and on reference to the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, has fixed the market value at Rs.1,49,000/-5
per acre and in appeal by the State before the High Court, the market value was reduced to Rs.1,48,000/- per acre in A.S.No.1748 of 2005. The said judgment was marked as Ex B6."
5. The State challenged the Judgments on the ground that the compensation awarded was excessive, aggrieved by the fixation of market value equally for all the lands acquired @ Rs.3,78,880/- per acre, the State has filed batch of appeals before this Court and one such appeal is L.A.A.S.No.623 of 2011 filed against the order in O.P.No.29 of 2007 and the said appeal is taken as lead appeal. This Court has allowed all the appeals filed by the State vide order dated 28.04.2016 and categorised the acquired lands into three categories and fixed the compensation as stated at prefatory portion of the order. This Court has allowed the batch of appeals on two counts (1) relying on the consent award passed in Ex.B10 dated 26.03.1998 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder for the facility purpose:
"Thus, we find two acquisitions relating to the land situate in Cherlopalli village of the year 1993. At this juncture only, we would like to advert to Ex.B-10 filed by the claimants bearing award No.4/1997-98, dated 26.03.1998, passed by the Special Deputy Collector 6 (Land Acquisition), S.R.B.C. Nandyal. It was a consent award indicating that the land owners of an extent of Acs.265.77 cents have agreed to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for dry lands, Rs.1,45,000/- per acre for irrigable wet lands, Rs.1,80,000/- per acre for the land in which slab factories have been existing Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for mining lands and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for kallam lands. Since it was a consent award, awarding statutory benefits was obviated indicating that both the parties kept in view, the additional market value at 12% and solatium at 30% in fixation of market value at that rate. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on
29.09.1997. Thus, acquisition of lands from Cherlopally village occur under Ex.B-10 relating to the year 1997." and (2) finding fault with the reference court in relying on Advocate commissioner report dated 22.01.2010 where Royalty Inspector of Office of Assistant Director Mines and Geology department has expressed his opinion in the report about the napa present in the acquisition land. It is also further observed by this Court the Royalty Inspector travelled beyond the scope of the warrant and he has given the report when the commission was appointed to find out the existence of napa stones in the five survey numbers and the Royalty Inspector, has given the report beyond the commission appointed and the said 7 report lacks elaboration, as it does not mention at what depth the mines are located and its stretch atleast approximately and also further observed that the burden is upon the claimants while seeking the enhancement of market value and all the acquisitions are having mining potentiality, but the claimants have failed to discharge the said burden observing that the order of the Reference Court suffers from legal infirmity.
6. On repetition, against this order, Special Leave Applications were filed and claimants have withdrawn the SLP's on 20.03.2017
7. All the present review petitions have been submitted by the claimants seeking to review the order issued on 28.04.2016, in the batch appeals on the grounds that these appeals were disposed by the common High Court based on the consent award marked as Ex.B10, and instead of considering the advocate commissioner's report rejected and the consent award cannot be the basis for fixation of compensation and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. N.Savitha reported in (2022) 7 SCC 256, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.5 held in the following manner: 8
"5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ex.P.17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition. In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore, the High Court has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40 lakhs per acre relying upon the award - Ex.P.17 in respect of the land which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011."
8. The learned counsel representing the claimants in the review petition argues that the composite High Court, in its decision on appeal A.S.No.1748 of 2005, determined the market value of mining lands to be Rs.1,48,000 per acre in 2005. The Reference Court correctly applied a 10% increase based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash (D) by LRs and others Vs. Union of India and Another (supra 1). The counsel contends that this Court improperly relied on consent Award, which constitutes a clear error and a miscarriage of 9 justice, hence the grounds presented are valid grounds to seek a review of this Court's order dated 28.04.2016. To substantiate the said contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others Vs. Central Bank of India, SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others reported in (2016) 13 SCC 135 and also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and another reported in (2004) 4 SCC 122 and also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajender Singh s. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and others (2005) 13 SCC 289, where the Hon'ble Apex Court in all the cases, has held that power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court and also an application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit and to avoid injustice under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C.
9. In Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and another (cited supra), the Supreme Court referring the judgment in S.Nagaraj and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 10 AIR Online 1993 SC 506, where in the said case, it was observed that "it is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and re-call its orders as and when it is brought to its notice that certain of its orders was passed on a wrong or mistake assumption of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious consequences and an act of Court should prejudice none."
10. Therefore, it is contended that the Court's reliance on Ex.B10, a consent award, is not legally permissible for determining the market value. Additionally, it is noted that the Advocate Commissioner, assisted by the Mandal Surveyor and the Royalty Inspector from the Mines and Geology Department, conducted a survey of the lands. The Court has not provided any valid reason to doubt the findings of this report, which was submitted by the Department and should be considered and it cannot be disbelieved. Hence, disbelieving the report of Royalty Inspector is another error apparent on the face of the record and the map also categorically shows the stretch of the land consisting of Napa stones. Hence, prayed to recall the order dated 28.04.2016 and set aside the same and dismiss the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Department.
11
11. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the Land Acquisition Department, Sri T.S.Rayalu, has made his submissions only on relying on the judgment of this Court in an order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.33306 of 2012 and batch dated 09.05.2024 in Government of A.P.Prl.Scy. Home, Hyderabad and others Vs. Vadde Pavan Kumar Anantapur Dist. & Others and also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515, for the proposition that an erroneous order is subjected to appeal before higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found and the error must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may be conceivable by two opinions and the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the petitioners have not established any valid grounds for reviewing the order 28.04.2016, and the issues raised do not demonstrate any 12 obvious errors on the face of the record, that the Court's order dated 28.04.2016 is lawful. Hence, prayed to dismiss the review petitions
12. At the outset and on the conglomeration of the facts and law as argued by both counsels for review petitioners and for the State the point for consideration is, whether the review petitioners have made out or established sufficient grounds to review the order delivered by the common High Court dated 28.04.2016 and additionally whether the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit applies to the facts of the present case?
13. The strong contention of the review petitioners is that placing reliance on the consent award in determining the market value and classifying the acquired lands into three categories is inconsistent with the legal principles established and categorising the lands acquired into three categories basing upon the consent award is contrary to law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. N.Savitha reported in (2022) 7 SCC 256 (cited supra), a consent award cannot be relied upon unless there is no other evidence on record available while determining the compensation in other acquisition.
13
14. The common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment dated 26.03.2007 in A.S.No.1748 of 2005 has fixed the market value for the similar lands in respect of mining lands at Sunkesula village @ Rs.1,48,000/- per acre and the said notification was issued on 12.03.1993 and the similar lands were acquired after gap of 13 years, vide draft notification dated 25.02.2005. The Reference Court has rightly taken into consideration the law and the potentiality of the land while fixing the compensation @ Rs.3,78,880/- and as held by Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (10) SCC 529, for the proposition when compensation fixed already by the higher court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceeding higher court already approved the rate fixed then the best method would be look at the earlier judgments. Alternatively it can be said when the compensation for the lands in the same village was determined in previous judgments, the Reference Court or the High Court cannot take sale instances into account while fixing the compensation in the subsequent case. The best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and awards and not to the sale instances. 14
15. The counsel for the review petitioners referred to the judgment In Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others reported in (1995) Suppl 2 SCC 168 = AIR 1995 SC 840, Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S.O. Tumari for the proposition that, even if the parties fail to file their objections and also examine witnesses to substantiate their stand, the Court is duty bound to examine the report of the Commissioner and satisfy itself about the correctness and acceptability of the same. It is not as if that the Court has to accept the report automatically and mechanically on the ground that no objections have been filed to the Commissioner's report and no contra evidence has been let in." This Court provides the following exposition regarding the advocate commissioner's report. 15.1 The appointment of the advocate commissioner by the court to note down the physical features along with Mandal Surveyor and Royalty Inspector of Department of Mines and Geology of five survey numbers does not prevent the commissioner from recording any observations gleaned on-site.
15.2 The opinion expressed in the report by the Royalty Inspector about the napa present in the acquisition land, if the author of the report 15 has made observations about the acquired lands based on site gleaning, then such a report should be given due consideration. Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced before the court giving opinion about the nature of land, the Court may choose to act upon such report for determination of nature of the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct. 15.3 The Royal Inspector has made a revelation of existing napa stones in the acquired land. He has not fixed the land values to discredit the same, to say personal considerations cannot be taken into consideration. No malice is assigned to the Royalty Inspector, nor is there any indication that the Inspector has conspired with the claimants to submit a false report. Without evidence of malice, discarding the report is unwarranted. Therefore, the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Royalty Inspector cannot be discarded, merely he was appointed to verify particular survey numbers. 15.4 Therefore, the commissioner's report cannot be set aside on the basis of observation made by the court in its judgment. The report 16 reflects the findings gathered in the fields. This is not a dispute between two parties, so it would be incorrect to claim that the commissioner exceeded the warrant entrusted to him. Nothing is wrong in recording what is observed during the inspection. If the report is not considered it would certainly cause miscarriage of justice to the claimants hence it is a ground for review. (See the judgment of the apex court reported in 2023 (2) SCC 561). When he has found that the Napa stones lands were covered at the stretch of the entire village, rejecting the report of the Commissioner is an error apparent on the face of the record and it also causes miscarriage of justice to the claimants herein.
16. The Reference Court has answered the reference and fixed the market value @ Rs.3,78,880/- per acre relying on the judgment of the High Court dated 26.03.2007 delivered in A.S.No.1748 of 2005 and its batch where the land was acquired in the same Sunkesula village and for the same project by adopting the escalation method 10% every year progressively from 1992 to 2005 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash (D) by LRs and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2004) 10 SCC 627. The rest of the land was acquired of the same village, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra in Bhim Singh Vs. State of 17 Haryana reported in (2003) 10 SCC 529, for the proposition that where the compensation for the lands in the similar village was determined in previous judgments, the Reference Court or the High Court cannot take sale instances into account while fixing the compensation in the subsequent case. It is submitted that best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and awards and not to the sale instances.
17. After given our anxious consideration the judgment of the Reference Court in O.P.No.167 of 1997 and its batch was assailed before the High Court and the same was affirmed in A.S.No.1748 of 2005 and there was no objection by and on behalf of the appellants to receive the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007 of this Court made in A.S.No.1748/2005 is in the same village and at the time of its acquisition, it possessed potentialities similar to the acquired land is not denied. On the other hand, the said averment is not denied. The judgment delivered by the Court may be considered as a guiding factor and if found relevant to the issues with clarity and certainty, we do not find any justification in discarding the same.
18. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others (cited supra), a power of review can also be 18 exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include misconception of fact or law. Here, the common High Court has not relied on the Commissioner Report and relied on the consent award while fixing the market value by this Court is a misconception of law as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. N.Savitha (cited supra), it causes miscarriage of justice. Hence, we are of the view that the judgment delivered by this Court, vide order dated 28.04.2016 is passed on misconception of law and fact. Hence, it is recalled and the Reference Court has rightly relied on the judgment dated 26.03.2007 in A.S.No.1748 of 2005 is in accordance with law while fixing the compensation. The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit applies to the facts of the present case as the court has taken the Ex B10 consent award as basis for fixation of compensation and not relying on the report of the Royalty Inspector, whereby the claimants have been unfairly affected by a Court's action.
19. Accordingly, all the review petitions are allowed and the common judgment dated 28.04.2016 in L.A.A.S.No.623 of 2011 and batch is hereby recalled and all the Land Acquisition Appeal Suits are hereby dismissed, confirming the order of the Reference Court dated 19 26.02.2010 in L.A.O.P.No.29 of 2007 and batch. However, no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these cases shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 18.07.2025 siva 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.599 OF 2008 Date: 18.07.2025 siva