B. Anantaiah & Ors. vs State Of Telangana & Ors.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:

During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 died. By orders dated 01.04.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2026 and I.A.No.1 of 2026 respectively, their legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.7 to 9 and petitioner Nos.10 to 13. Petitioner Nos.8 and 9, being minors, are represented by their natural mother, petitioner No.7.

Heard Sri G. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Swathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6. Perused the material on record.

The petitioners are agriculturists residing at Nandimalla X Road, Atmakur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Their lands, together with the wells, pipe lines, trees and other improvements standing thereon, were taken up for acquisition on the ground that they were coming under submergence under the Priyadarshini Jurala Project, Stages-II and III. The requisition was made by the Executive Engineer, P.J.P., L.A.R. Division, Gadwal, for an extent of Ac.135-12 guntas of Nandimalla village, and upon sub-division the extent was refixed at Ac.121-09 guntas.

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.25, Irrigation and C.A.D. (P.W.) Department, dated 16.01.1997, invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A, and was published in the A.P. Gazette (S.S.P.No.2) dated 20.02.1997. The declaration under Section 6 was published in the A.P. Gazette (S.S.P.No.3) dated 24.02.1997. By Lr.No.B/1016/1993, dated 12.10.1994, the fifth respondent had set out the number of structures and trees standing in Sy.No.123 of Nandimalla village.

The case pleaded by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the notification itself gave the details of the petitioners, the extents of their lands and the trees, structures and bore wells attached to the lands: that compensation was paid in respect of the lands, but no proposals were sent for valuation of, or payment for, the structures. It is further pleaded that out of a total of 5283 trees in an extent of Ac.14-11 guntas in Sy.No.123, the authorities chose to pay compensation only in respect of 2385 trees (Ac.7-95), leaving out 2600 pomegranate trees, 2 wells and 2 pipe lines (Ac.6-10); and that no compensation at all was paid for 100 pomegranate trees in Sy.No.125 (Ac.1-14 guntas), 450 pomegranate trees, 2 wells and 1 pipe line in Sy.No.126 (Ac.1-19 guntas), 1 well, 2 in-well bores and 1 pipe line in Sy.No.84 (Ac.8-28 guntas), and 1 well and 1 pipe line in Sy.No.127 (Ac.22-03 guntas), all of which were likewise acquired.

The petitioners further plead that some of the villagers of Nandimalla village had earlier approached the High Court of composite State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2846 of 2002, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge following the order in W.P.No.12879 of 2005 dated 25.07.2005, directing the respondent authorities to pay compensation for the structures acquired; that the writ appeal preferred by the State in W.A.No.1985 of 2005 was dismissed; and that some of the individuals have since been compensated in respect of the trees in part of Sy.No.123 by virtue of those orders, while the petitioners have been left out.

The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, (L.A.) Unit, P.J.P., Gadwal, passed Award No.11 of 2001 dated 03.02.2001 in File No.B/1174/98. The market value was fixed with reference to four categories of land, namely, Category-I dry lands at Rs.30,000/- per acre, Category-II I.D. lands at Rs.36,000/- per acre, Category-III wet lands at Rs.39,000/- per acre and Category-IV garden lands at Rs.42,000/- per acre.

So far as the garden lands and the structures are concerned, the award reads as follows:

Respondent No.6, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), has filed a counter affidavit stating that the draft notification and draft declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published in the A.P. Gazette S.S.P.No.2 dated 20.02.1997 and S.S.P.No.3 dated 24.02.1997; that the Executive Engineer, P.J.P., L.A.R., Gadwal was requested by Lr.No.B/1174/98 dated 24.09.1999 to submit the valuation of the sheds and structures covered by the Section 4(1) notification; that the Executive Engineer, by his Lr.No.LAR/DB/146/Vol-II/406 dated 14.11.1998, informed that new structures had been constructed during 1993-94 unauthorisedly in the submergence area with a motivation to get huge compensation from the Government by knowing of the acquisition; and that, in respect of the structures, the award records that no separate value for wells, pipe lines and other structures would be given apart from the land value, and that the value of the structures, that is, trees, wells and pipe lines, has accordingly been deleted from the preliminary valuation.

In reply to the specific plea of the petitioners regarding the trees, respondent No.6 states that the Assistant Director of Horticulture had submitted the estimation of the value of the horticulture trees and plants as per G.O.Ms.No.601 dated 19.06.1992, the details having been mentioned in the gazette notification, vide his Lr.No.C/07/2006 dated 29.10.2007, and that "accordingly, payment was made to the trees".

Respondent No.4, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.6, Pebbair, has filed a separate counter affidavit substantially on the same lines. It is stated therein that as per Award No.11 of 2001 some structures, namely, wells and pipe lines, were acquired, but that no separate value for wells, pipe lines and other structures would be given apart from the land value, and that the value of the structures, that is, trees, wells and pipe lines, has been deleted from the preliminary valuation. It is, however, added that the Land Acquisition Department is the competent authority to decide the valuation and payment of compensation for the lands acquired.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the examination and valuation of the properties by the competent authorities, particularly with regard to the structures, wells and pipe lines, was not carried out in accordance with law.

He submitted that in L.A.O. – Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar v. T. Bhaskar^{11.1997 (5) ALT 254 (D.B.)}, separate compensation was declined because the value of the wells and pipe lines had already been reckoned in the market value of the land. In the present case, on the contrary, it is an admitted position that the value of the structures, trees, wells and pipe lines, though separately assessed by the Executive Engineer and taken note of by the Land Acquisition Officer, was excluded altogether by applying that judgment. The petitioners are therefore entitled to be paid on the basis of the valuation already made by the competent authorities and recorded in the award.

He further submitted that in respect of the very same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.25 dated 16.01.1997, this Court has already considered the identical issue in W.P.No.2846 of 2002, which was decided by following the order of this Court in W.P.No.12879 of 2005 dated 25.07.2005; that the said order was carried in appeal in W.A.No.1985 of 2005 and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.669 of 2006, which came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order dated 25.07.2005; and that the present case, arising out of the very same notification, is squarely covered by those orders.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another^{22.AIR 1996 SC 106}, Hans Raj Sharma (dead) by LRs v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil & District Doda^{33.(2005) 1 SCC 553} and Santosh v. State of Maharashtra^{44.(2017) 9 SCC 714}.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and C.A.D. submitted that, in the light of T. Bhaskar (cited supra), no separate compensation is payable for the wells, pipe lines and other structures apart from the value of the land, and that the Land Acquisition Officer had, for that very reason, excluded their value while passing the award. It was further submitted that the structures were raised unauthorisedly during 1993-94 in the submergence area with the object of claiming a large compensation after the acquisition became known, and that the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the rival submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the record, the following points arise for consideration:

The award shows that the Land Acquisition Officer did not doubt the existence of the wells, pipe lines and other structures. He recorded that such structures were existing on the lands under acquisition, that he had personally inspected them, and that the Executive Engineer had furnished their valuation, which he set out in a tabular form aggregating Rs.1,78,890/- towards the wells and Rs.1,64,830/- towards the other structures. Having so recorded, he deleted the entire valuation from the preliminary valuation, and the only reason assigned for doing so was the ruling in T. Bhaskar (cited supra), wherein the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O. Janardhan Reddy vs. Spl. Dy. Collector^{55.1994 (3) SCC 22} and State of Bihar vs. Madheshwar Prasad^{66.1996 (6) SCC 5}, have been followed. It is therefore necessary to see what that judgment decides. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench in T. Bhaskar (cited supra) read as follows:

Two things are plain from the above. First, T. Bhaskar arose out of an appeal under Section 54 of the Act against the enhancement of compensation by the reference Court. The Division Bench itself enhanced the market value of the land from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per acre, and it declined a further separate award for the well and the pipe line for the express reason that "the existence of irrigation well has been duly taken into account by us while enhancing the market value of the land". The rule laid down is a rule against duplication: where the market value of the land already absorbs the advantage of the irrigation facility, that advantage cannot be paid for a second time under a separate head.

Secondly, and this is decisive, the Division Bench expressly refused to disturb what the Land Acquisition Officer had himself awarded on that account. It held in terms that the amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector towards the cost of the well and the syphon system was not to be set at naught, and that the sum of Rs.21,873/- so awarded "will stand". T. Bhaskar(cited supra) is thus, if anything, an authority against the course adopted in the present case. It is no authority whatsoever for an officer to strike out of his own valuation an amount which he has himself assessed after inspection.

When the award in the present case is examined against that background, the foundation on which T. Bhaskar(cited supra) rests is found to be absent. The market value here was fixed with reference to the classification of the lands into dry, I.D., wet and garden lands, at Rs.30,000/-, Rs.36,000/-, Rs.39,000/- and Rs.42,000/- per acre respectively. There is nothing in the award to indicate that these rates were loaded, or in any manner enhanced, on account of the wells or the pipe lines existing on the lands. The Land Acquisition Officer neither says so, nor is any such reasoning to be found in the award. The value of the wells and pipe lines was simply deleted, and the petitioners have received nothing at all on that account. To apply a rule against double payment where there has been no payment at all is to misapply it.

There is a further difficulty. T. Bhaskar(cited supra) is concerned with irrigation wells, pipe lines and arrangements for drawing water; it says nothing about trees. Yet the deletion clause in the award extends to “trees wells and pipe lines”. The value of the trees could not have been deleted on the strength of a judgment which does not deal with trees at all. To the extent that the award fixes the rate for the garden lands “including fruit bearing trees”, the value of the fruit bearing trees on those lands stands absorbed in the land value; but that is a reason founded on the award itself, and it can have no application to trees on lands not falling within Category-IV, nor to the trees for which the respondents themselves say that a separate estimation was obtained from the Assistant Director of Horticulture and payment made.

For these reasons, this Court holds that the reliance placed by the Land Acquisition Officer on T. Bhaskar (cited supra) for deleting the value of the wells, pipe lines and other structures was misplaced, and that the deletion cannot be sustained. Point (i) is answered accordingly, in favour of the petitioners.

The plea that the structures were raised unauthorisedly during 1993-94 in the submergence area, in anticipation of the acquisition, is taken for the first time in the counter affidavits. It finds no place in the award. The award does not say that the structures were unauthorised, or recent, or got up for the purpose of the acquisition. On the contrary, the Land Acquisition Officer records that he inspected the structures and accepted the valuation furnished by the Executive Engineer, and he deleted their value on one ground and one ground only, namely, the ruling in T. Bhaskar (cited supra).

It is settled that when a statutory authority passes an order on stated grounds, the validity of that order must be judged by the reasons which it itself records, and those reasons cannot be supplemented later by fresh reasons furnished in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. That principle, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, applies with full force here. The respondents cannot be permitted to support the deletion by a reason which the Land Acquisition Officer did not give.

Even otherwise, the plea does not survive scrutiny on the record. The award itself describes the Category-IV lands as gardens of pomegranate and guava, "being irrigated by laying pipe lines, by erecting electric motors to their agricultural wells situated in the same survey numbers", and as gardens in "average management average growth and productivity". A fruit bearing garden of that description, watered by wells and pipe lines, is not brought into existence overnight. Further, the letter of the Executive Engineer said to contain the information about unauthorised construction is dated 14.11.1998, whereas the office letter in response to which it is said to have been sent is dated 24.09.1999. The plea is, in these circumstances, wholly unsubstantiated.

Point (ii) is accordingly answered against the respondents.

¹(1978) 1 SCC 405

In W.P.No.12879 of 2005, the grievance of the petitioners therein was that the authorities were initiating proceedings for acquisition of the land while leaving out the structures standing on it. The respondents therein resisted the claim on the ground that the structures had been put up contemplating the acquisition proceedings, with the sole object of claiming enhanced compensation. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 25.07.2005, held as follows:

That order was carried in appeal in W.A.No.1985 of 2005, which was dismissed, and thereafter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.669 of 2006, which was also dismissed, thereby confirming the order dated 25.07.2005. W.P.No.2846 of 2002, filed by other villagers of Nandimalla village in respect of this very acquisition, was allowed by following that order. The view taken has thus attained finality in this very acquisition.

It is true that the facts are not identical. In W.P.No.12879 of 2005 the structures had been kept out of the acquisition proceedings altogether, and the direction was to bring them in by a supplementary notification. Here the structures were brought in, were inspected, and were valued, and it is their assessed value which was struck out at the last stage. The case of the petitioners therefore stands on a stronger, not a weaker, footing. The principle which the learned Single Judge applied, that the State may not acquire the land and leave the structures standing on it uncompensated, governs the present case a fortiori.

There is one further circumstance. Respondent No.6 states in the counter affidavit that the Assistant Director of Horticulture furnished the estimation of the value of the horticulture trees under G.O.Ms.No.601 dated 19.06.1992 and that payment was made towards the trees. The petitioners plead, and it is not denied, that such payment was made to some of the claimants under this very award, pursuant to the orders of this Court, while they were left out. No reason has been shown why claimants under one and the same notification and one and the same award should be treated differently. Such differential treatment cannot stand consistently with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Point (iii) is answered in favour of the petitioners.

Under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Collector, in determining compensation, is required to take into consideration, firstly, the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), and secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees on the land. The wells, pipe lines and trees standing on the acquired land are not extraneous to the acquisition. They pass to the State along with the land, and their value must find a place in the computation, whether by being absorbed in the market value of the land or by being separately assessed. What the law forbids, as T. Bhaskar (cited supra) explains, is duplication. It does not permit the owner to be left with nothing.

On the material on record, no duplication is shown in respect of the wells and the pipe lines. Their value was assessed by the Executive Engineer, was accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer after inspection, was set out in the award, and was then deleted. The petitioners are entitled to be paid that value, to the extent of the wells and pipe lines standing on the lands acquired from them.

In respect of the trees, a distinction has to be drawn. Where the lands fall within Category-IV, the award fixes the rate of Rs.42,000/- per acre "including fruit bearing trees", and to that extent the value of those trees has already been paid over as part of the land value; to award it again would be to pay twice for the same thing. But where the trees stand on lands not so valued, or where, though separately estimated by the Assistant Director of Horticulture under G.O.Ms.No.601, no payment has in fact reached the petitioners, they are entitled to be paid. The exercise of ascertaining what has been paid and what has not is one of fact, and must be undertaken by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the records available with the respondent authorities.

Since the reliance placed on the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners was in support of the general proposition that a landowner is entitled to compensation for what stands upon the acquired land, and since that proposition is established on the record of this very acquisition and by the orders of this Court which have attained finality, it is unnecessary to burden this order with a separate discussion of those judgments. Point (iv) is answered in favour of the petitioners in the above terms.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The deletion, from Award No.11 of 2001 dated 03.02.2001, of the value of the wells, pipe lines and other structures assessed by the Executive Engineer and recorded in the award, is set aside, and there shall be the following directions:

The Land Acquisition Officer shall undertake the above exercise in accordance with law, with reference to the earlier proceedings and, if necessary, by conducting an enquiry on the basis of the records available with the respondent authorities, and shall complete it within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is needless to observe that the Land Acquisition Officer shall issue notice to the petitioners before conducting such enquiry and before taking any steps for passing the award. The petitioners shall be entitled to participate in the enquiry and to place their submissions and material before the Land Acquisition Officer.

It is made clear that this order is confined only to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.