IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO. 677 OF 1995 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acqusition) IPT & Railways, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND Guguloth Lalsingh S/o Somiya R/o Giddorigudem h/o Vishwanochapalli, Singareni Mandalam and nine others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, I.P.T., and Railways, Khammam has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P No. 153 of 1991 dated 17.6.1994 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.2.19 gts of land in S.Nos. 405, 406, 412 and 413 situated at Singaram Village of Yellandu Taluk was acquired for the Steel Authority of India Limited, Karepalli Village vide notification published in the gazette dated 29.12.1983 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under the law, has grouped the lands as single crop wet land and double crop wet land and by taking the sale statistics as basis he has awarded Rs. 6,600/- per acre for single crop wet land and Rs. 7,600/- per acre for double crop wet land. Being dissatisfied with the Award, the respondent-claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred and taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge in O.P No. 153 of 1991. The learned Subordinate Judge upon appreciation of both the documentary and oral evidence available on record fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,000/- per acre for double crop wet land. Hence this appeal. In order to establish the claim, claimant No. 7 was examined as PW-1 and claimant No. 6 was examined as PW-2 and got marked Exs A1 to A3 and on behalf of the referring officer, no witness was examined but Exs. B1 to B-11 were marked. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, upon appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence uniformly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,000/-per acre taking into consideration Ex. A2, which is the certified copy of the order in respect of the award in O.P.Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 25 to 38 of 1985 dated 7.6.1990. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Learned Government Pleader contended that the judgment and decree of the reference Court is unjust and inequitable and the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation uniformly at Rs. 14,000/- per acre. , relying on Ex. A2, which has not become final and the same is the subject matter of appeal before this court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants submits that after considering the nature of the land and market value at the time of notification, and also after following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in NANDARAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [1], the reference court enhanced the compensation uniformly and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court. As seen from the record an extent of Ac.2.19 gts of land in S.Nos. 405, 406 412 and 413 situated at Singaram Village of Yellandu Taluk was acquired for railway for the Steel Authority of India Limited, Karepalli Village by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs. 7,600/- per acre for double crop wet land. On reference the reference Court enhanced the same to Rs. 14,000/- per acre placing reliance on Ex. A2, Certified Copy of the order in O.P.Nos. 21 to 23 and 25 to 38 of 85 and also relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in NANDARAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA (supra-1). In the circumstances, the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation from Rs. 7,600/- to Rs. 14,000/- for double crop wet land and we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO,J DATE: 22.10.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] 1988(2) Law Summary 45