Market Value Certificates Of Later Periods Can't Be Relied On To Enhance Land Acquisition Compensation: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed pleas seeking enhancement of compensation for land acquisition, noting that the plaintiffs had relied upon market value certificates of the land of a later date despite possession taking place earlier.

In doing so the court observed that a party cannot rely on market value certificates of a later date in order to seek enhanced compensation.

A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Mahesware Rao Kuncheam in its order noted,

“The learned trial Court considered the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A4, the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar dated 28.09.2011 and also Ex.A12 market value guidelines register in respect of Sy.No.841 and 842, in addition to the other documentary evidence as also the oral evidence and observed that Ex.A12 guidelines pertained to the year 2010, validated from 01.08.2010, whereas in the case of the plaintiffs/appellants the resumption orders were in the year 2004.

According to the petitioners, possession was taken in the year 2008. Even if it be so, Ex.A12 was effected with effect from 01.08.2010. So, the trial Court is justified in not placing the reliance on Ex.A12 for determination of the market value of the plaint schedule lands as in the year 2008. We are of the view that market value was not required to be determined based on the market value certificate Ex.A12 which came into existence with effect from 01.08.2010, whereas in the case of the plaintiffs, such determination was to be made in the year 2008,” the court held.

The court also reiterated that normally compensation for land acquisition is to be determined as per market value of land on the date acquisition notification is issued.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka (2025) where it was held that only in "exceptional circumstances" acquisition compensation can be determined based market value/price of land of a date later than when the notification for acquisition was issued. 

The high court thus noted that the appellants have been granted compensation as determined with reference to the date of possession taken in the year 2008 and not as per the market value on the date of Land Acquisition Notification in the year 2004, and so there was no grievance on this count.

The court passed the order in a petition challenging the compensation for the lands resumed which was fixed as per the directions of the high Court in W.P.No.1049 of 2008.

The appellant-plaintiffs had challenged a trial court 2012 order which had dismissed their suits seeking enhanced compensation.

The plaintiffs' case was that they were cultivating the lands and had developed it. It was alleged that the Revenue Officer had cancelled the assignment of pattas and issued orders of resumption of land dated 30.06.2004 to provide housing site pattas to the weaker sections.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the Resumption Order dated 30.06.2004 and later filed a plea to maintain status quo passed on 09.05.2007. The Joint Collector upheld the plea of the plaintiffs and modified the resumption orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer directing to resume the land subject to payment of market value payable under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act with 30% solatium on the market value and future interest

The modified order of resumption was also challenged in 2008, in which the High Court upheld the Joint Collector's order with the clarification that the assignees were entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the LA Act, i.e., the compensation along with solatium and additional compensation and interest besides ex gratia payable as per a 1993 GO.

The plaintiffs, again raised the grievance that the compensation was not granted in terms of the modified 2008 High Court Order and filed another plea in 2008, which was dismissed by the High Court in 2009.

The plaintiffs' argued that the market value of the suit land fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, was very low.

The plaintiffs' case was that the suit lands were situated in an urban area having more open market value than the amount fixed by the 2nd defendant. The respondent-defendants then filed a written statement in which they pleaded that the reasonable amount had been paid to the plaintiffs. The Respondents further pleaded that the registered sale deed cannot be considered for determination of the market value hence there exists no justification to pay compensation at the rate as pleaded by the plaintiffs.

The trial court recorded that the compensation for the lands resumed was fixed as per the directions of the high court dated 24.01.2008 and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to enhanced compensation.

The high court said that there was no dispute that pursuant to the High Court's 2008 on direction to pay 12% additional market value and interest and in compliance thereof, the additional market value at the rate of 12% and interest at 9% and 15% respectively from the date of taking possession 28.01.2008 and 10.05.2008 was paid.

“The determination of the compensation being in terms of the directions issued in 2008, no case for interference with the judgment of the learned trial Court is made out. The determination of the market value could not be shown to be suffering from any error of law or fact,” the court added.

The high court thus upheld the trial court order and dismissed the appeal.

Case title: Vempalli Khasim Saheb and Gundluru Peeramma v.s Government of Andhra Pradesh

APPEAL SUIT Nos. 288 & 317 of 2013

Click Here To Read/Download Order