K. DEVAKIMMA & ORS.versusTIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS & ANR.

                    [2015] 5 S.C.R. 759


                  K. DEVAKIMMA & ORS.                           A
                             v.
     TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS & ANR.
            (Civil Appeal No. 5768 of 2006 etc.)
                                                                B
                      APRIL 23, 2015
             [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY
                 MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land -         C
Compensation for - Determination of - Reference Court
awarded compensation by fixing the rate between Rs. 801-
to Rs. 1001- per sq. ft. - In appeal by beneficiary ofthe
acquisition, High Court reduced the rate to Rs. 301- per sq.
ft. - Held: Where there is no evidence of any                   D
contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisition of
comparable lads, recourse can be taken in appropriate
cases to the mode of determining the market value of the
acquired land by providing appropriate escalation over the
proved market value of nearby lands in previous years -The      E
Reference Court rightly relied on the rates determined by it
in relation to adjacent lands acquired in the past years and
applied the principle giving escalation - It was all the more
because no sale deeds were available due to the statutory       F
ban imposed bys. 123 of Andhra Pradesh Act- However,
the Reference Courlwas not right in fixing varying rates from
Rs. 801- to Rs. 1001- - Hence the rate of compensation is
fixed at Rs. 901- per sq. ft. - Compensation - Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and         G
Endowments Act, 1987- s. 123.

    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. Recourse can be taken in appropriate
                            759                                 H
760      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 5 S.C.R.

A cases to the mode of determining the market value of
  the acquired land by providing appropriate escalation
  over the proved market value of nearby lands in
  previous years where there is no evidence of any
  contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisition of
B comparable lands in neighborhood. The percentage of
  escalation may vary from case to case so also the
  extent of years to determine the rates. The Reference
  Court, therefore, rightly relied on the rates determined
  by it in relation to adjacent lands and applied the
C principle of giving escalation to the rates determined
  yearly and worked out the rates between 801- to 1001-
  per square feet. It was not in dispute that the public
  purpose for acquisition of both the lands was the same
  and secondly, all these lands were in the close proximity
0
  with each other being situated in Tirumala. [Paras 25 and
  26) [773-B-C, E]

       General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
  Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 745:
E 2008 (11) SCR 927 & Valliyammal & Anr. Vs. Special
  Tahsifdar (Land Acquisition) & Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 91: 2011
  (11) SCR 293 - relied on.

      2. The High Court having rightly held that the
F Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam has acquired immense
  potential due to its pilgrimage status in the country, was
  not right in holding that its potentiality cannot be taken' ·
  into consideration for holding that the prices of the land
  are also escalated due to such reason. The escalation
G in price of the land which depends upon the nature of
  land and its surrounding, its benefit should have been
  given for determining the price of the land in question
  by taking into account the rate of land fixed by the
H Reference Court in relation to land acquired in past
         K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                    761
                  DEVASTHANAMS

years as was rightly done by the Reference Court. It A
was all the more because no sale deeds were available
for filing due to peculiar reason that there was a
statutory ban imposed by Section 123 of the Andhi'a
Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions &
Endowments Act, 1987, for sale of private land in the B
area in question. It was for this reason, no private sale
had taken place of any parcel of land at the relevant time
barring one or two. [Para 27] [773-F-G; 774-A-B]

    3. The High Court further erred in finding fault in the    C
orders/awards which were rightly relied on by the
Reference Court. The High Court failed to see that they
were not hearing the appeals arising out of those orders/
awards to examine their legality or/and correctness
which had become final and were also given effect to.          D
The High Court was required to see as to whether the
land involved in those cases was similar to the one
which was the subject matter of present proceedings
and secondly, what was the rate fixed therein by the
Reference Court for the lands. The appellants                  E
(landowners) were, therefore, justified in filing the
copies of orders/awards passed in relation to the
adjacent lands for proving the market rate of the land
in question. Thus, the rate fixed by the Reference Court       F
between Rs.BO/- to Rs.100/- per square feet for the lands
in question was just and proper and the High Court
erred in reducing the same to Rs.30/- per squetre feet.
[Paras 27, 28 and 29] [774-C-G]

    4. Since the land of all the appellants was more or G
less similar in nature and no evidence was adduced by
the appellants to prove any significant improvement/
addition or/dissimilarity in the land or its quality, the
Reference Court should have fixed one uniform rate for H
762       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 5 S.C.R.


A the entire land rather than to fix different rates such as
  Rs.80/-, Rs.86/-, Rs.90/- and Rs.100/- per square feet for
  different landowners. The appellants are entitled to get
  the compensation for their respective lands at the rate
  of "Rs.90 per square feet". So far as the compensation
B awarded by the Reference Court for super-structure
  built on each appellant's land is concerned, it does not
  call for any interference. [Paras 30 and 31] [774-G-H;
  775-A-D]

C      5. The Court observed that the appellants are all
  small shopkeepers who were carrying on their small
  business for their livelihood but now due to the
  acquisition, they are deprived of their land and therefore
  unable to do their business. In case if any of the
D appellants apply for allotment of any land/shop/space
  to TIO for doing any business in the area under their
  ownership or/and control then the TTD would be at
  liberty and may consider their case for providing them
  a shop or land or space, as the case may be, pursuant
E to any of their scheme, if any in force, on suitable terms
  and conditions alike others as a fine gesture on the part
  of the TTD, for compliance. [Paras 32, 33 and 34] [775-
  E-F, G-H; 776-A-B]
 F                      Case Law Reference

         2008 (11) SCR 927       relied on.       Para 25

         2011 (11) SCR 293       relied on.        Para 25
G       · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      5768 of 2006.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07 .2004 of the
   Division Bench of High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh
 H at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 120 of 2001 with Cross Objection
        K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                763
                 DEVASTHANAMS

(SR) No. 17190 of 2001, Appeal No. 1778 of 2011 with Cross A
Objection (SR) 65760 of 2001, Appeal No. 1808 of 2001,
Appeal No. 1927 of 2001 with Cross Objection (SR) No.
66074of2001,Appeal No. 2421of2001 with Cross Objection
(SR) 82152 of 2001, Appeal No. 1975 of 2002 and Appeal
No. 1411of2003.                                            B

                            With

    C. A. No. 5769 and 5770 of 2006

     B. Adinarayana Rao, T. V. Ratnam, John Mathew, G. C
Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. Wasay Khan, B. Suyodhan,
Filza Moonis for the Appellants.

   Guntur Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, T. V. Ratnam, C. K.
Sucharita for the Respondents.                            D

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are
filed against the common judgment and order dated E
05.07.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 120 of 2001 with Cross
Objection(SR) No. 17190 of 2001, Appeal No. 1778 of 2001
with Cross Objection(SR) No. 65760 of 2001, Appeal No.
1808 of 2001, Appeal No. 1927 of 2001 with Cross F
Objection(SR) No. 66074 of 2001, Appeal No. 2421 of 2001
with Cross Objection(SR) No. 82152 of 2001, Appeal No.
1975 of 2002, Appeal No. 1411 of 2003, Appeal No. 2304
of 2002, Appeal No. 155 of 2003 and Appeal No. 1279 of
1999 with Cross Objection(SR) No. 87947 of 1999, Appeal G
No. 67 of 2001, Appeal No. 726 of 2001, Appeal No. 1849
of 2001, Appeal No. 2031 of 2001, Appeal No. 1304 of 2001
and Appeal No. 1145 of 2003.

    2. By impugned judgmenUorder, the Division Bench of H
764       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A the High Court, partly allowed the first appeals filed by the
  respondents herein and reduced the rate of compensation
  payable to the claimants/landowners (appellants herein) at
  Rs.30/- per square feet, which was fixed by the Reference
  Court (Civil Court) between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square
B feet for the land acquired by the State under the Land
  Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act").
  Dissatisfied with the judgmenUorder passed by the High
  Court, the claimants/land-owners have filed these appeals for
  enhancement of the compensation.
c
        3. The question that arises for consideration in these
  appeals is whether the High Court was justified in partly
  allowing the appeals filed by the respondents herein by
  reducing compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet
D for the land which was acquired by the State or the rate should
  have been more than Rs.30/- and, if so, how much, i.e., the
  one determined by the Reference Court (Civil Court) between
  Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet or it should be more than
  that?
E
        4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these
  appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts infra. For
  the sake of convenience, we shall first advert to the factual
  matrix of C.A. No. 5769 of 2006 (P. Sreenivassulu Naidu vs.
F The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, TIO,
  Tirupathi & Anr.)

       5. The appellant in C.A. No.5769 of 2006 is the owner
  of the land measuring 4176 square feet as per the State
G whereas 5220 square feet as per the appellant. This land is
  situated in T.S. No 40/2 Ward No.3, Block E in village
  Tirumala. Likewise, the appellants in other two appeals are
  also owners of the similar land as described in the memo of
  appeals. The appellants were having their small shops and
H hutments on their land wherein they used to carry on their small
        K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                         765
    DEVASTHANAMS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

business for their livelihood.                                     A

     6. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4
of the Act, the State Government issued a notification on
15.01.1987 and acquired the appellant's aforementioned land
along with the land of other landowners alike the appellant        s
situated in the same area. The land was acquired for the
benefit of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (in short "the
TTD") to enable them to develop Balaji temple town by
constructing roads, Kalyanamandapam, Choutries and for
providing other civic amenities in the town for the benefit of C
large number of devotees, who regularly visit the temple for
having darshan of Lord Balaji.

    7. In other appeals, similar notifications under Section 4
were issued by the State on 19. 06.1985, 23.12.1985, D
26.05.1986, 29.08.1986, 25.05.1987, 05.08.1987,
21.08.1989 and 26.10.1992 for accomplishing the same
public purpose. By these notifications, a large chunk of land
was acquired in the same area where the land of the appellant
in C.A. 5769 of 2006 was situated. So far as the land E
belonging to the present appellants was concerned, it was of
small dimension.

     8. Notification under Section 4 was followed by the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on                F
05.08.1987 and likewise it was published on other dates in
relation to notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act for
adjacent lands.

     9. This led to initiation of the proceedings for G
determination of compensation payable to each landowner
including that of the appellants herein by the Land Acquisition
Officer (in short 'the LAO'). Notices under Section 9 of the Act
were issued to the appellants calling upon them .to participate
in the land acquisition proceedings to enable the LAO to H
766       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [20~] 5 S.C.R.


A determine the fair market value of the land on the date of
  acquisition as provided under Section 23 of the Act so that
  compensation would be paid to the landowners at such
  determined rate. Accordingly, the LAO held an enquiry and
  after affording an opportunity to the appellants herein passed
B an award on 12.03.1991 and also on different dates as
  mentioned in the memo of appeals fixing the market value of
  the acquired land at Rs.11/- per square feet. So far as the
  structure built by the appellant in C.A. No. 5769 of 2006 on
  the land in question was concerned, it was valued at
C Rs.45,936/-. The LAO, therefore, fixed Rs.11/- per square feet
  as the uniform rate for awarding compensation for the land
  to all the landowners. So far as the compensation for built-up
  structure on the land of individual landowners was concerned,
  it varied in cases of individual landowner and was accordingly
0
  calculated on the basis of extent and quality of construction
  made by each landowner. The appellants were, accordingly,
  paid the compensation for their land and super-structure
  standing on their land in addition to other statutory
E compensation such as solatium, interest etc. payable under
  the Act.

       10. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the appellants in all
  the appeals sought reference to the Civil Court under Section
F 18 of the Act for re-determination of the compensation made
  by the LAO. The reference Court, on the basis of the evidence
  adduced, partly answered the reference in favour of the
  appellants by award dated 15.07 .2002 and accordingly
  enhanced the rate of the compensation from Rs.11 /- per
G Square feet to Rs.86/- per square feet. In other words, the
  reference Court held that the appellant was entitled to get
  compensation for his land at the rate of Rs.86/- per square
  feet being the fair market value of his land on the date of
  notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In other two
H appeals, the reference Court by awards passed on different
       K. OEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                          767
    OEVASTHANAMS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] .

dates enhanced the compensation and fixed it between               A
Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet.

     11. Challenging the legality and correctness of the awards
of the Reference Court, the  no,     for whose benefit the land
was acquired, filed appeals before the High Court under B
Section 54 of the Act. So far as the appellants (landowners)
were concerned, they filed cross-objections and prayed for
enhancement in the compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per
square feet as against Rs.SO/~ to Rs.100/- per square feet
awarded by the Reference Court.                                 C

      12. The Division Bench of the High Court, by common
impugned judgment/order partly allowed the appeals filed by
no     (respondent herein) and reduced the compensation
payable to the appellants toRs.30/- per square feet. In other      o
words, in the opinion of the High Court, the Reference Court
was not right in determining the compensation payable
between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet instead it should
have been paid at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet uniformly
to all the landowners (appellants). In this way, the appellants    E
were held entitled to get the compensation at the uniform rate
of Rs.30/- per square feet for their respective lands. As a
consequence, the cross objections filed by the appellants
herein (landowners) for enhancement of the compensation at
Rs.150/- per square feet were dismissed. Against this              F
judgment/order, the claimants/landowners have filed these
appeals by way of special leave petitions.

     13. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
                                                                   G
    14. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants in C.A. No. 5769 of 2006
contended that the High Court erred in partly allowing the
appeals filed by the no.According to the learned counsel,
no case was made out by the     noeither on facts or in law        H
768       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 5 S.C.R.


A for reduction of rate of compensation, which was rightly fixed
  by the Reference Court between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per
  square feet. He submitted that the Reference Court had rightly
  appreciated the evidence on record for enhancing the rate of
  compensation and on such appreciation itself, it could have
B awarded still higher than what was awarded but in no case it
  could have been less than the same as was done by the High
  Court, which has no basis. Learned counsel further pointed
  out that apart from the evidence adduced by the claimants-
  appellants herein before the Reference Court to prove the fair
C market value of the land, even the counsel appearing for TTD
  did not raise any objection for payment of compensation at
  the rate of Rs.90/- per squaie feet. !..earned counsel also
  pointed out that by virtue of ban contained in Section 123 of
D the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions
  & Endowments Act 1987 (for short 'the AP Act') for sale of
  the land situated in Tirumala Hills, it was not possible to any
  person to sell his land privately and it was for this reason, the
  appellants were not able to file copies of any sale deeds of
E the lands which did not take place between the two private
  parties except one or two. This aspect, according to the
  learned counsel, was rightly taken note of by the Reference
  Court while determining the value of the land but was not so
  taken note of in its proper perspective by the High Court
F resulting in committing an error while determining the value
  of the land. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that this
  Court should restore the award of Reference Court.

      15. Learned counsel for the appellants in other two
G appeals adopted the arguments of Mr. Adinarayana Rao.

         16. In contra, Mr. G. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the
   respondent (TTD) supported the impugned judgment and
   contended that no case is made out on facts or/and in law to
 H call for any interference in the impugned judgment of the High
       K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                    769
   DEVASTHANAMS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Court. This submission was elaborated by the learned A
counsel by referring to the reasoning contained in the
impugned judgment.

    17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record. of the case, we find force in tlie B
submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants (land-owners) and hence are inclined to allow these
appeals in part by restoring the award of the Reference Court
with part modification as detailed infra by enhancing the
compensation.                                                  C

      18. In our considered opinion, the reasoning and the
conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court (civil court) while
fixing the rate of compensation between Rs.80 to Rs.100/- per
square feet for the land in question was just and proper and o
hence the same should not have been disturbed by the High
Court in appeals filed by the TTD for reducing the rate to
Rs.30/- per square feet. In other words, hour considered view,
if the reference Court was right in fixing the rate of
compensation between Rs.80 to Rs.100/- per square feet for E
the entire acquired land in question, the High Court was not
right in interfering with this finding of the Reference Court and
reducing it to Rs.30/- per square feet. This we say so for the
following reasons.
                                                               F
      19. In order to prove the market rate of the land in
question, the appellants-landowners had adduced evidence
by filing certified copies of sale deeds and several awards
passed by the Reference Court (Civil Court) wherein the
Reference Court had determined the fair market value of the G
adjacent similar lands which were acquired prior to acquisition
of the lands in question. Exs.B-7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (marked in
Award No.46/90-91) are the copies of the orders/awards
passed by the Reference Court in relation to the lands which
                                                                H
770        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 5 S.C.R.


A were acquired in the years 1957, 1962 and 1976. The rate
  fixed by the Reference Court for the lands acquired in the year
  1957 was at Rs.30/- per square feet. Likewise the rate fixed
  for the land acquired in the year 1962 was at Rs.40/- per
  square feet and for the lands acquired in the year 1976, the
B rate. was at Rs.73/- per square feet. Exs. B-12, 13 and 15 are
  the copies of the orders/awards passed by the Reference
  Court in relation to the lands acquired in 1986 and 1987. The
  rate fixed for the land acquired in the year 1986 was at
  Rs.100/- per square feet and for the land acquired in the year
C 1987, the rate was Rs.106/- per square feet.

       20. It is not in dispute that so far as the orders/awards
   (Exs. 8-7 to 8-11) were coiiCSiTu::J, ii pertained to lands
  adjacent to the lands in question and had attained finality
D whereas the orders/awards (Exs.8-12,13 and 15) were sub
  judiced in pending appeal.

         21. The Reference Court, therefore, took into
    consideration the rates of lands prevailing in the years 1957,
· E 1962 and 1976 (without taking into account the rates of lands
    prevalent in the years 1986 and 1987 though they related to
    lands sold in near proximity with acquisition of the lands in
    question on the ground that the appeals were pending in
    relation to these lands against the orders/awards) and then
  F taking into account the appreciation in the value of land in the
    last 25 years at Rs.3/- per square feet per annum fixed the
    fair market value of land in question between Rs.80 to Rs.100/
    - per square feet.

 G         22. It is pertinent to mention that the learned counsel
      appearing for the no had given his no objection to the rate
      fixed by the Reference c.ourt which was duly recorded by the
      Court in Para 8 of the award dated 14.3.2001 (Award No.46/
      90-91). It reads as under:
 H
        K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                    771
    DEVASTHANAMS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      "8. The advocate for the claimants argued that the · A
      market value of the site at Tirumala during 1962
      was Rs.40/- per sq. foot as per Ex.8-3 and since
      the site in question is acquired in 1987, i.e., 25
      years after the land acquisition covered by Ex.8-
      3, the market value of the site acquired in this case B
      can be fixed more than Rs.100/- per sq. foot by
      considering the appreciation in the value of the site
      since 25 years at Rs.3/- per sq. foot per annum. The
      advocate for R.2/8eneficiary argued that in similar
      cases, this court fixed the market value of the site C
      at Rs.90/- per sq. foot and he has no objection to
      fix the same market value at Rs.90/- per sq. foot for
      the site acquired in this case ........ "

                                    (Emphasis supplied)      ·D

       23. The High Court, however, while reversing the
  aforesaid view of the Reference Court held that the
  Reference Court erred in relying upon the orders/awards
  passed in other cases for determining the value of the lands E
  in question. The High Court then went on to the extent of ·
  finding fault in the orders/awards. The High Court also did not
  agree with the Reference Court to hold that the prices of the
. land escalate in passage of time every year though it held that
 the Tirupati (Tirumala) has acquired potential due to F
  pilgrimage. It is apposite to state what the High Court held
  on this issue:

      "As observed above, the very basis in determining
      the market value of the land by the reference courts G
      is erroneous in law and is contrary to the settled
      principles. Reference Courts have proceeded in the
      matter assuming abnormal rise in prices and
      erroneously placed reliance upon the judgments
      in P.P. No.34 of 1964 or O.P. No.23 of 1969 and H
772         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 5 S.C.R.

A          batch. Reliance was placed erroneously on the
           alleged statement of LAO made in O.P. No. 30 of
           1982. There was no evidence adduced by the
           claimants evidencing any escalation in price from
           1957 till respective dates of acquisition. Evidence
B          on record, as discussed above, suggest that prices
           have remained static at Tirumala irrespective of the
           place gaining considerable importance or the
           place being visited by innumerable pilgrims.
           Pilgrims visit the Holy Place only for the purpose
c          to have darshan of the deity and not with a view
           to settle there. No evidence is left in to show that
           there was heavy demand for land in the area.
           Therefore, there was no justification on the part of
           the Reference Courts in fixing the market value on
D
           the basis of the market value fixed in the earlier
           judgments. May be that in one case, i.e., in 0.P.
           No.23 of 1969 and batch appeals were filed and
           there was no interference by this Court in the
E          assessment of the market value, but, that alone
           could not have been made the basis for arriving at
           the market value in these cases. There was
           absolutely no evidence to have proceeded to fix
           the market value more than what was offered by
 F         the LAO. Considering the facts and circumstances
           of the case and fixing the market value at Rs.23/-
           per sq. ft. we are inclined to take in all cases the
           market value of the land at Rs.30/- per sq. ft. which
           would be just, fair and equitable and to that extent
G          the respective awards of the reference courts
           deserve to be modified."

         24. We do not agree with the aforesaid finding of the High
      Court for the following reasons detailed infra.
 H
              K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                            773
          DEVASTHANAMS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

           25. As mentioned above, the reasoning of the Reference A
      Court is in conformity with the principle of law laid down by
      this Court wherein this Court has in no uncertain held that
      recourse can be taken in appropriate cases to the mode of
      determining the market value of the acquired land by
      providing appropriate escalation over the proved market B
      value of nearby lands in previous years where there. is no
      evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or
      acquisition of comparable lands in neighborhood. The
      percentage of escalation may vary from case to case so also
      the extent of years to determine the rates (see General               c
      Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs.
      Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745
      & Valliyammal & Anr. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land
      Acquisition) & Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 91).
~·                                                                  D
           26. We find that the Reference Court, therefore, rightly
      relied on the rates determined by it in relation to adjacent lands
      and applied the principle of giving escalation to the rates
      determined yearly and worked out the rates between 80/- to
      100/- per square feet. It was not in dispute that the public          E
      purpose for acquisition of both the lands was the same and
      secondly, all these lands were in the close proximity with each
      other being situated in Tirumala.

             27. The High Court having rightly held that the Tirumala F
       Tirupati Devasthanam has acquired immense potential due
     . to its pilgrimage status in the country was not right in holding
       that its potentiality cannot be taken into consideration for
       holding that the prices of the land are also escalated due to
       such reason. As held by this Court in O.N.G.C. and G
       Valliyammal's cases (supra), the escalation in price of the
       land which depends upon the nature of land and its
       surrounding, its benefit should have given for determining the
       price of the land in question by taking into account the rate of
                                                                        H
774        SUPREME CO! IRT REPORTS                (2015] 5 S.C.R.


A land fixed by the Reference Court in relation to land acquired
  in past years as was rightly done by the Reference Court. It
  was all the more because no sale deeds were available for
  filing due to peculiar reason that there was a statutory ban
  imposed by Section 123 of the AP. Act for sale of private land
B in the area in question. It was for this reason, no private sale
  had taken place of any parcel of land at the relevant time
  barring one or two. Similarly, the High Court further erred in
  finding fault in the orders/awards which were rightly relied on
  by the Reference Court. The High Court failed to see that they
C were not hearing the appeals arising out of those orders/
  awards to examine their legality or/and correctness which had
  become final and were also given effect to. The High Court
  was required to see as to whether the land involved in those
  cases was similar to the one which was the subject matter of
0
  present proceedings and secondly, what was the rate fixed
  therein by the Reference Court for the lands.

          28. The appellants (landowners) were, therefore, justified
   in filing the copies of orders/awards passed in relation to the
 E adjacent lands for proving the market rate of the land in
   question because as mentioned above, these lands were
   situated in the same area nearer to the lands in question and
   were also acquired for the same public purpose.

 F        29. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the
      considered opinion that the rate fixed by the Reference Court
      between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet for the lands in
      question was just and proper and the High Court erred in
      reducing the same to Rs.30/- per square feet.
 G
        30. We are, however, of the view that the Reference Court
   having held that the appellants were entitled to compensation
   at the rate varying between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square
   feet, should have fixed one uniform rate for the entire land
 H rather than to fix different rates such as Rs.80/-, Rs.86/-,
         K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI                        775
     DEVASTHANAMS [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

 Rs.90/- and Rs.100/- per square feet for different landowners. A
 In our view, since the land of all the appellants was more or
 less similar in nature and no evidence was adduced by the
 appellants to prove any significant improvement/addition or/
 dissimilarity in the land or its quality, the Reference Court
 should have fixed one uniform rate.                            B

      31. Having regard to the totality of factual undisputed
 scenario which has emerged from the evidence and taking
 into account the extent of the land held by each landowner,
 we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are C
 entitled to get the compensation for their respective lands at
 the rate of "Rs.90 per square feet". So far as the
 compensation awarded by the Reference Court for super-
 structure built on each appellant's land is concerned, it does
 not call for any interference. In our view, it was rightly upheld D
 by the High Court and we also uphold the same, calling no
 interference.

        32. Learned senior counsel for the appellants
  (landowners) then submitted that the appellants are all small    E
· shopkeepers who were carrying on their small business for
  their livelihood but now due to the acquisition, they are
  deprived of their land and therefore unable to do their
  business. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the TTD
  may be directed to provide any alternate space/shop/land to      F
  the appellants herein in the nearby area on any terms and
  conditions which will enable them to start business for their
  livelihood. Learned counsel for the TTD has, however,
  opposed this prayer.
                                                                   G
      33. Having taken note of the submission of the learned
 counsel for the appellants, all that we wish to observe is that
 in case if any of the appellants apply for allotment of any land/
 shop/space to TTD for doing any business in the area under
 their ownership or/and control then the TTD would be at liberty H
776         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A and may consider their case for providing them a shop or land
  or space, as the case may be, pursuant to any of their
  scheme, if any in force, on suitable terms and conditions alike
  others as a fine gesture on the part of the TTD, for
  compliance.
B
      34. We, however, make it clear that the observations
  made in para 33 are only in the nature of observations and
  not an order/writ issued against the TTD.

c          35. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed
      and are allowed in part. The impugned judgment/order of the
      High Court is set aside and the awards passed by the
      Reference Court (civil court) are restored with the modification
      indicated above. The respondents are directed to calculate
o     the payment of compensation payable to each appellant
      (landowner) as directed above and pay the compensation
      money to each of the appellant within three months from the
      date of the receipt of copy of this judgment.
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                         Appeal partly allowed.
E