Andhra Pradesh High Court dismisses landowners' demand for higher compensation

According to a report by The Economic Times, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the petition of landowners in Kadapa district for additional compensation in a judgment. The court noted that the landowners presented their arguments based on market value certificates of the year 2010, whereas the government had actually taken possession of this land in the year 2008.

The main reason for filing the claim for additional compensation by the landowners was that the market value of the land determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Kadapa was very low and against the spirit of certain government memorandums (GOMS No. 1307 and 1391). The landowners argued that their lands are located in urban areas and their value in the open market is much higher compared to the amount fixed by the government. According to the recorded basic value entries, the value of the surrounding lands was stated to be ₹300 per square yard. Therefore, the landowners aimed to get compensation at the rate of ₹600 per square yard and made their representations to the government accordingly.

This land was classified as DKT patta and was near the land acquired for the ring road. After hearing the grievance of the landowners, the Joint Collector, as per the government memo guidelines (GOMS No. 1307, dated December 23, 1993), approved the ex-gratia payment by determining the market value at the rate of ₹1.5 lakh per acre with 30% solatium. Angered by this, the landowners filed a case in the High Court (WP No. 1409 of 2008) which ordered the Joint Collector to reconsider the matter.

No. 8009 of 2008) was dismissed. Still remaining dissatisfied, the landowners filed another case in the High Court demanding even higher compensation.

The court stated that the government issued the order to withdraw this land in 2004 itself but took possession of the land in 2008 and accordingly paid 2008 rates instead of 2004 rates. In 2010, when land prices saw a huge spike, the landowners claimed higher compensation. The High Court rejected this basis of raising prices.

Regarding the background of these lands, the report stated that these were DKT (Darkhast) lands given to the ancestors of the landowners. DKT is government waste land allotted to landless poor people especially for cultivation or residence in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. This DKT land was given to the ancestors of the landowners by the Mandal Revenue Officer of C.K. Dinne on February 16, 2002. Now the landowners claimed that they were cultivating and developing these lands and irrigating them with bore-well water.

The landowners alleged that while they were in continuous possession of these lands, suddenly the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled their patta allotment and issued land resumption orders on June 30, 2004 to provide residential house pattas to weaker sections.

In the order and discussion of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the landowners relied on the 2010 guidelines which increased the land acquisition rate, but the High Court pointed out that their own land was acquired in 2008. The High Court stated that the trial court considered the documentary evidence of the valuation certificate issued by the sub-registrar dated September 28, 2011 and the market value guidelines register in relation to the land, as well as other documentary and oral evidence. The court observed that the 2010 guidelines were valid from August 1, 2010, while in the case of the landowners, the resumption orders were issued by the government in 2004.

Thus the High Court stated that the government took possession of these lands in 2008 and the guidelines became effective from August 1, 2010. Therefore, the High Court said that the trial court was justified in not relying on the 2010 guidelines to determine the market value of the land for the year 2008. The High Court also reiterated that generally the compensation for land acquisition is determined according to the market value of the land on the date on which the acquisition notice is issued.

The High Court also referred to a Supreme Court case (Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka - 2025) which stated that only in "exceptional circumstances" can acquisition compensation be determined on the basis of the market value or price of the land of a date subsequent to the date on which the notice for acquisition was issued.

The High Court also observed that the original notice for land acquisition was issued in 2004, although the government took possession in 2008 and the landowners got compensation at 2008 rates instead of 2004 rates, there was no grievance regarding this. The High Court ruled that there was no dispute that complying with the order of another bench in 2008, the Joint Collector distributed 12% interest in addition to the market value.

Since the determination of compensation was in accordance with the terms of the orders issued in 2008, there is no case made out for interfering with the judgment of the learned trial court. No error of law was found in the determination of market value. The Andhra Pradesh High Court thus upheld the order of the trial court and dismissed the appeal of the landowners for further enhanced compensation.