THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.784 OF 2007 DATED 18TH JANUARY, 2011 BETWEEN: Kadiyala Sambasiva Rao … Appellant/Petitioner/Claimant a n d Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, P.W.D. Scheme, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. … Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.784 OF 2007 J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) Dissatisfied with the enhancement effected by the reference Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada in O.P.No.7 of 1995, the claimant therein is in appeal. The claimant’s land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents situated in Survey No.334/2A of Kuripirala Village, Krishna District, was acquired by the State for the improvement of Budameru Drain. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in this regard on 12.10.1990. By Award No.4/92 dated 13.11.1992, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by this valuation, the appellant herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The reference Court clubbed his reference in O.P.No.7 of 1995 with O.P.No.12 of 1994, a similar reference arising out of the same Award, and tried both O.Ps. together. Before the reference Court two witnesses were examined by the claimants in the two O.Ps., and four documents were marked on their behalf while the State examined the Special Tahsildar as R.W.1 and adduced six documents in evidence. The appellant herein, speaking as P.W.1, deposed that the market value of his land would not be less than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and that his net annual income per acre was about Rs.15,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1, marked Ex.B.2 sale deed dated 05.07.1988, Ex.B.3 sale deed dated 05.07.1988 and Ex.B.4 sale deed dated 27.03.1989. These sale deeds put the market value of the land sold at Rs.12,100/- per acre. These lands were however admitted to be at a distance of 2½ K.Ms. from the acquired land. The reference Court was therefore of the opinion that fixation of the market value basing on these sale transactions was not just and reasonable. Further, R.W.1 also admitted that the basic value as per the registration authorities in the year 1992 was Rs.30,000/- per acre. The reference Court ultimately took into account the fact that it had already determined the market value of land situated in the very same survey number at Rs.30,000/- per acre in an other proceeding (Ex.A.2, the C.C. of the Decree in O.P.No.95 of 1991) and accordingly confirmed the same for the acquired land. Sri G.Dharma Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the determination of the market value of the acquired land by the reference Court was on the lower side. It is however to be noticed that no material was placed on record by the appellant to support his claim that the acquired land would have fetched Rs.1,00,000/- per acre at the time of the acquisition. In the absence of cogent and independent evidence in this regard, we find no error on the part of the reference Court in following its earlier determination of market value for land in the very same survey number. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the Order and Decree under challenge. The Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM,J -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 18TH JANUARY, 2011. PGS