HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY A.S. No. 363 OF 1998. DATED 9TH MARCH, 2010. BETWEEN: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni, Kunrool District. …..Appellant/RO. and Smt. Ramabai and ors … Respondents/Claimants. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY A.S. No. 363 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ﬁled by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1996 passed in O.P.No. 168 of 1988 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Adoni, whereby the Reference Court answered the reference in favour of the respondents/claimants, enhancing the market value ﬁxed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer at Rs.5,000/- per acre to Rs.10,000/- per acre for the lands acquired. A total extent of 157.21 cents of land covered by various survey numbers situate in the villages of Kaggal, Narayanapuram, Sathanur and Timbiganur was acquired for the purpose of formation of new tank across the Vanka near Kaggal village. Out of the total extent of Ac.157.21 cents of the acquired land, an extent of Ac.5.57 cents covered by Sy.No. 48 of Kaggal village belongs to the respondents/claimants. A notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the LA Act and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were duly published in the A.P.Gazettee on 31.1.1984. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, after conducting due award enquiry, passed Award No. 2/86, dated 31.7.1986, ﬁxing the market value for the lands belonging to the respondents/claimants at Rs.5,000/- per acre as against their claim of Rs.25,000/- per acre. The respondents/claimants being dissatisﬁed with the ﬁxation of the market value to their acquired lands, sought reference to the Civil Court and accordingly, a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act was referred to Civil Court, which was registered as OP.No. 168 of 1988. In order to prove the rival claims, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Oﬃcer. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, R.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B.1 to B4 were marked. Ex.X.1-Entry at Page No. 83 in Well Utilization Register was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the Reference Court, modiﬁed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer by enhancing the market value by Rs.5,000/- per acre and ﬁxed the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in absence of relevant supporting evidence adduced by the claimants to substantiate enhancement of market value by Rs.5000/-, the judgment of the Reference Court cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that due to acquisition of the land, the claimants’ livelihood has been taken away and the compensation ﬁxed by the Reference Court at Rs.10,000/- per acre calls no interference. The Reference Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties, in particular Ex.B.1, recorded a ﬁnding that the claimants were raising single crop like chillies, paddy, Groundnut, cotton etc., with the aid of well water and that the acquired land had a potential irrigation facility and therefore, existence of the well with such irrigation facility enhanced the value of the land. It is on record that the possession of the land was taken in advance on 1.3.1981, much prior to the publication of the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in the gazette on 31.1.1984 and therefore, the claimants have lost income from the land under acquisition for three years. Therefore, considering all these, ﬁxing up of the market value for the land under acquisition at Rs.10,000/- per acre is based on the evidence on record and the same does not call for any interference. In view of the same, we see no merit in the appeal and accordingly conﬁrm the market value ﬁxed by the Reference Court. However, We see force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the reference Court erred in awarding the interest from the date of taking possession. It is needless to state that the claimants are entitled to all statutory beneﬁts under the Act 68/84 including interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of notiﬁcation for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of realization, including the interest on solatium. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY DATED 9T H MARCH, 2010. Msnr.