The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected a plea for higher land compensation in Kadapa district on April 24, 2026. The court said landowners cannot use 2010 market values when the government took possession in 2008. Compensation must reflect the land value at the time the government acquired the property.
Synopsis
The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the landowners’ request for enhanced compensation by noting that the landowners relied on market values from 2010 despite the government acquiring lands in 2008. The landowners claimed their compensation was inadequate due to significant market price increases occurring later. The high court emphasized compensation should be based on the market value at the time of acquisition.
Listen to this article in summarized format
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a judgement has rejected the landowners’ request for enhanced compensation in Kadapa district.The court noted that the landowners based their claims on the enhanced market value certificates for 2010 even though the government had taken possession of the land in 2008.
The main reason the landowners had filed the enhanced compensation claim was because they alleged that the market value of the land as fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, was too low and against the spirit of some of the government memorandums (G.O.Ms.Nos.1307 and 1391).
The landowners argued that their lands were located in urban areas and had a higher value in the open market value compared to the amount determined by the government. The value of the adjacent lands was said to be Rs 300 per square yard according to the basic value registered entries. Thus the landowners aimed for compensation at Rs 600 per square yard and accordingly raised their concerns with the government.
This land was classified as DKT patta and was close to the land acquired for the ring road. The Joint Collector after hearing the landowners' grievance, approved an ex gratia payment, fixing the market value at Rs 1.5 lakh per acre, along with a 30% solatium, in line with the government memo guidelines ( G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated December 23, 1993).
Feeling aggrieved, the landowners filed a case in high court (W.P.No.1409 of 2008) which ordered the Joint Collector to look into this again. Acting on the high court’s direction, the Joint Collector gave the landowners 12% additional market value and 9% interest and also 15% additional interest from the date of taking possession i.e., January 28, 2008 and March 10, 2008, respectively and the case (W.P.No.8009 of 2008) was dismissed.
Still unhappy, the landowners filed another case in the high court seeking a further enhanced compensation.
On April 24, 2026, the high court said that landowners cannot rely on market value certificates issued at a later date to seek enhanced compensation.
The court said that the government issued the order to take back this land in 2004 but took possession of the lands in 2008 and accordingly paid 2008 prices and not 2004 ones. In 2010, when the land prices surged, the landowners claimed more compensation. The high court rejected this ground for raising prices.
Background of these lands
These were DKT (Darakastu) lands which were given to the landowners’ predecessors. DKT is government wasteland assigned to landless poor people, particularly in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, for cultivation or housing.
This DKT land was given to the landowners’ predecessors on February 16, 2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K.Dinne. Now the landowners claimed that they were cultivating the lands and developing it and irrigating through bore-well water.
The landowners alleged that they were in continuous possession of these lands when suddenly the Mandal Revenue Officer cancelled their patta assignment and issued orders for resumption of land on June 30, 2004 to provide housing site pattas to the weaker sections.
Andhra Pradesh High Court order and discussion
The landowners relied on a 2010 guideline which enhanced the rate of the land acquisition but their own lands were acquired in 2008, which the high court pointed out.
The high court said that the trial court had considered the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A4, the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar dated September 28, 2011 and also the Ex.A12 market value guidelines register in respect of the lands, in addition to other documentary evidences as well as oral evidence and observed that Ex.A12 guidelines pertained to 2010, validated from August 1, 2010, whereas in the case of the landowners, the resumption orders were issued by the government in 2004.
Thus the high court said that the government took possession of these lands in 2008 and the guidelines (Ex. A12) were effective from August 1, 2010. So, the high court said the trial court was justified in not placing reliance on Ex.A12 for determining market value of the lands as of 2008.
The high court said that they 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 August 1, 2010, whereas in the case of the landowners, such determination was to be made in the year 2008, reported LiveLaw.
The court also reiterated that normally compensation for land acquisition is to be determined according to market value of land on the date the acquisition notification is issued.
The high court also referred to a Supreme Court case (Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka (2025)) where it was held that only in "exceptional circumstances" can acquisition compensation be determined on the basis of market value/price of land of a date later than when the notification for acquisition was issued.
The high court also observed that the original notification to acquire the land was issued in 2004, though the government took possession in 2008 and the landowners got compensation in 2008 rates rather than 2004, and so there was no grievance on this count.
The high court ruled that there was no dispute that following another bench’s order in 2008, the joint collector disbursed an additional 12% of the market value along with interest. Consequently, the extra market value at 12%, and interest rates of 9% and 15%, respectively, were paid from the dates of possession January 28, 2008 and May 10, 2008 respectively.
Order:
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 fac
The Andhra Pradesh High Court thus upheld the trial court order and dismissed the landowners’ appeal for more enhanced compensation.