IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2309 OF 1999 Between: The Land Requisition Officer-cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallada. … Appellant And: Kommineni Ramaiah and others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S. No.2309 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition, 1894 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallada, is directed against the order dated 18-06-1999 in O.P.No.20 of 1990, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, wherein compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre by enhancing the same from Rs.5,500/- per acre, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. An extent of Ac.1-12 guntas in Sy.No.169/E situated at Vengannapeta village in Thallada Mandal was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, on requisition by the Block Development Officer, for providing house sites to the members of Scheduled Castes. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 09-03-1997. After following the procedure prescribed, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,300/- per acre by relying on the sale transaction dated 04-10-1984 in respect of Ac.5-10 guntas in Sy.No.567/EE. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded Rs.7,800/- as compensation for a well situated in the land. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant sought reference of the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Act. 3. During enquiry before the Reference Court, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he also examined P.W.2 who purchased an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.172 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per gunta under the sale deed marked as Ex.A-1 which works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre. On behalf of the respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 award proceedings and Ex.B-2 reference application were marked. 4. The Reference Court relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the sale consideration as mentioned in Ex.A-1 as a comparable transaction owing to its proximity to the land acquired had fixed the market price of the acquired land at Rs.44,000/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.19,000/-, the value of the land was fixed at Rs.25,000/- per acre. The Reference Court had rightly relied on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the sale transaction covered by Ex.A-1, which was, in fact, referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Having regard to the potentiality of the land and possibility of development of land into house sites and its close vicinity to the developed area of the village, the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired land taking into consideration the sale transaction covered under Ex.A-1, is considered to be just and reasonable in the absence of any evidence to the contra adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation awarded for the well is also considered to be just and reasonable and the impugned order passed by the Reference Court fixing the compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre for the land acquired does not, therefore, call for any interference, as the same is passed on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. It is needless to say that the claimants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. 6. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J. Dated 23rd March, 2010 Lrkm/Bss