IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO.1568 of 1997 Between: Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,Vikarabad Division. ..... Appellant AND Malla Reddy. .....Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J) The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order and decree dated 25.07.1994 in O.P.No.86 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The Land Acquisition Officer issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of lands in Pathoor Village for the purpose of formation of percolation tank. The said notification was published in the District Gazette on 11.08.1987 and draft declaration was approved and published on 16.11.1987. As per the said notification, the land of an extent of Acs.2.09 gts in Sy.Nos.71 and 72 of Pathoor village belonging to the respondent, was acquired for the said purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure prescribed under law, passed award, dated 09.12.1988 and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,000/- per acre besides granting statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the same has been referred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Vikarabad Division, for determination of the market value of the said acquired land and it was taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District as O.P.No.86 of 1989. 3. In order to establish his claim, the respondent-claimant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the appellant, RW1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, having observed that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.25,000/- and Ex.A1 shows that the market value of the adjacent land is at Rs.18,000/-per acre, enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre besides all statutory benefits available under law. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that the acquired land and the land covered under Ex.A1 are not identical and therefore, the Court below erred in enhancing the compensation. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. 7. We have perused the order under appeal. As per Ex.A1- certified copy of sale deed, dated 08.05.1986, P.W.2 purchased Ac.0.01 gts in Sy.No.70 at the rate of Rs.18,000/-per acre. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.25,000/-. Admittedly, the acquired land was fit for cultivation. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly enhanced the compensation of the acquired land from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre. Since the Reference Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for the said enhancement, which is too margin, we do not find any merit in the order under appeal warranting interference by this Court. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date:22.10.2009 sj