THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.827 OF 2005 DATED 18TH JANUARY, 2011 BETWEEN The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad. .…Appellant/Respondent And Smt.C.Laxmamma and Others. …Respondents/Claimants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.827 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) This appeal by the State arises out of the Order and Decree dated 03.04.2004 passed by the reference Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P.No.52 of 1995. By the said Order and Decree, the reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.2,40,064/- per acre. An extent of Ac.8.06 guntas of land belonging to the respondents herein situated at Alampally Village, Ranga Reddy District, was acquired by the State for laying a railway line. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 16.01.1992. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated 31.12.1993 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Having received this compensation under protest, the respondents herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming that the market value of the land was Rs.150/- per square yard. Before the reference Court, the claimants examined four witnesses and marked six documents. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as D.W.1 and marked two documents. Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 11.05.1988 and Ex.A.3 sale deed dated 22.08.1987, relied upon by the claimants, being sufficiently anterior in point of time to the acquisition, were believed to be genuine transactions by the reference Court. These lands were also acquired by the Railway Department and were the subject matter of reference proceedings in O.P.No.51 of 1995. Ex.A.6 was the Judgment passed by the reference court in the said O.P. The evidence brought on record further established that the acquired land and the lands covered by Ex.A.6 Judgment were adjacent to each other, the distance between them being less than one kilometer. This aspect was also confirmed by Ex.B.2, the photostat copy of the map marked by the Land Acquisition Officer, which showed that the acquired land and the last bit of the land covered by Ex.A.6 Judgment were only separated by the Moosi river and the distance between them was less than one kilometer. The reference Court therefore opined that the lands covered by Ex.A.6 Judgment and the acquired land were similar in nature and potential. In that view of the matter, the reference Court placed reliance on the market value determined under Ex.A.6 at Rs.117/- per square yard. However, taking into account the differences between the land covered by Ex.A.6 Judgment and the acquired land, the reference Court was of the opinion that a deduction of Rs.55/- was warranted from the market value fixed under Ex.A.6 Judgment and accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.62/-per square yard. Further, keeping note of the fact that the acquired land was undeveloped, the reference Court effected further deduction at the rate of 20%, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.49.60 ps. per square yard, equivalent to Rs.2,40,064/- per acre. After due consideration, we are of the opinion that the aforestated exercise by the reference Court does not reflect any error on facts or in law warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. As the lands covered by Ex.A.6 Judgment were established to be similar in nature and potential and were sufficiently proximate to the acquired land, reliance placed by the reference Court upon such earlier determination undertaken vide Ex.A.6 Judgment cannot be found fault with. Further, the reference Court took necessary care to scale down the market value obtaining therefrom, keeping in mind the differences in the lands and also effected necessary deduction towards development charges. This exercise by the reference Court is unassailable and we find no reason to interfere. The Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18TH JANUARY, 2011. VGSR