ZTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1179 OF 2002 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Jagitial …Appellant Vs. M.Surender Rao and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1179 OF 2002 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge Jagtial in O.P.No.82 of 1993 enhancing the market value from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.4.39 guntas of land situated at Anthergoon Village of Jagtial Mandal was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Scheduled Castes and weaker sections and a draft notification was given on 04-09-1990 and possession of the land was taken on 29- 04-1989 and an award was passed on 03-09-1992 fixing the market value at Rs.12,500/-. The claimants were not satisfied with the above value and claimed that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.40,000/- and a reference was consequently made to the civil court. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-15 and on behalf of the referring officer RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate judge enhanced the market value to Rs.30,000/-. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the order of learned Senior Civil Judge in enhancing the market value is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS:- The claimants contended that the lands are double crop wet lands with secured source of irrigation and relied on Exs.A-1 to A-10 pahanies showing that the source of irrigation is a tank. The claimants also further relied on a sale deed under Ex.A-11 dated 29-06-1988 where under one Swarajya Lakshmi sold Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.67 which works out @ Rs.23,800/- in the year 1988. The said land said to be half a furlong from the acquired land. his was also considered by the Land Acquisition Officer but discarded the same reasoning that it has got potentiality and a distance of 1 ½ furlong from the acquired land. The evidence of PWS.1 to 4 is generally about the particulars of the sale transactions and also the potentialities of their lands. The learned Senior Civil Judge did not accept that the lands are dry lands as contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in view of the pahanies. He also discarded the sales under Exs.A-12 to A-14 where small bits of land were sold. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the acquired lands are suitable for house sites and close to the village and though they are shown as dry lands having secured source of water and therefore they have to be considered as wet lands. The distance between the lands under Ex.A-11 and A-12 cannot be said to be far. Taking into time lag of two years from Ex.A-11, the lower court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/-. The lower court has given sufficient reasons and we do not find any reason to interfere with the enhancement granted by the lower court. Accordingly the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered. Accordingly the Appeal Suit is dismissed. It is needless to mention that if any statutory benefits including the solatium, additional market value and interest thereon are not granted by the lower court, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]), the claimants can file an application before the lower court and the lower court shall consider and grant relief accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 20-1-2011 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).