THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No.2092 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Thotapalli, Gudur, filed this appeal challenging the order, dated 11.07.2002, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in O.P.No.108 of 1992. The Government of A.P. acquired land of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land in Sy.No.397/D2 of Venkannapalem village of Thotapalli Gudur Mandal, from the 1st and 2nd claimants and Ac.0.50 cents of land in sy.No.397/D21 and 402/3 of the same village, from the third claimant, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. In the above said lands, there were 40 fully-grown palmyrah trees and 10 half-grown palmyrah trees. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was approved by the Government and was published on 8.8.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer after issuing notices and after conducting enquiry, passed Ex.B1 award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per acre, and Rs.15/- for each fully-grown palmyrah tree and Rs.10/- for each half-grown palmyrah tree. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. On reference being made, the claimants appeared before the Court below and filed claim statements claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre for the acquired land and Rs.50/- per each palmyrah tree, in addition to the other amended benefits. Before the Court below, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. It is the case of the claimants that the Government acquired Ac.1.50 cents of land in S.No.397/D2 of Venkannapalem village from the 1st and 2nd claimants and an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in S.Nos.397/D2 and 402/3 of the same village from the third claimant and that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded unreasonable compensation of Rs.6,000/- per acre and as per Exs.A1 to A3-sale deeds, the adjacent lands were sold away at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre and that the acquired lands are agricultural lands and they were raising paddy and groundnut crops in the acquired lands and were getting a net profit of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per acre from those lands. The Court below while placing reliance on the sale deeds produced by the claimants viz., Exs.A1 to A3, observed that the Land Acquisition Officer has not properly considered the market value of the acquired land and he has not assigned any reasons nor given any data to arrive at such low market value for the acquired lands, and enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,000/-per acre from Rs.6,000/- and Rs.40/- for each big palmyrah tree and Rs.25/- for each small palmyrah tree. Challenging the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed the present appeal. Though notice was served on the respondents, none appeared on their behalf. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the compensation fixed by the Court below is illegal and excessive. On a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer had not placed any material or data, on which basis, he fixed the compensation under Ex.B1 award. Therefore, taking into consideration the transactions that took place under Exs.A1 to A3, the Court below fixed the compensation. Similarly, while fixing the compensation for the trees, the Court below had taken into consideration the age of the trees. Except baldly stating that the enhancement of compensation is excessive, the learned Government Pleader did not adduce any material before this Court in support of his contention. Therefore, we feel that the Court below has rightly adjudicated the matter basing upon the documentary evidence available on record and that the compensation fixed by the Court below for the acquired land viz., Rs.18,000/- per acre and Rs.40/- for each big palmyrah tree and Rs.25/- for each small palmyrah tree, is just and reasonable and the order impugned herein does not warrant any interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Dated: 21.06.2011 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No.2092 OF 2002 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 21.6.2011