THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.406 OF 2005 DATED 18TH JANUARY, 2011 BETWEEN Kadiyala Sambasiva Rao .…Appellant/Claimant And Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Tahsildar, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. …Respondent/Referring Officer THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.406 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) By common order dated 30.01.2004 passed in O.P.Nos.95 and 96 of 1991, the reference Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.18,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the claimant in O.P.No.96 of 1991 is in appeal. An extent of Ac.1.32 cents of land situated in R.S.No.334/2B of Pedalingala Village in Nandivada Mandal of Krishna District belonging to the appellant was acquired by the State for the purpose of improvement of Budameru Drain. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 06.12.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, by his Award No.2/91 dated 07.06.1991 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.18,000/- per acre. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As a similar claim was made in O.P.No.95 of 1991, the reference Court clubbed both the O.Ps. for trial and adjudication. Before the reference Court the claimants in the O.Ps. examined four witnesses and marked four documents. The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, P.W.D. Scheme, Machilipatnam, was examined as R.W.1 and adduced three documents in evidence. The appellant herein, speaking as P.W.1, claimed that the market value of his wet land would be Rs.50,000/- per acre. The reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence adduced, was of the opinion that the sale transactions under Exs.A.1 and A.2 relied upon by the claimants could not be accepted. However, taking into account the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.18,000/- per acre basing on a sale transaction of the year 1986, the reference Court was of the opinion that prices would have increased since then and therefore the Land Acquisition Officer erred in not effecting enhancement upon the market value reflected by the said sale. Accordingly, the reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Relevant to note, Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 08.02.1988 pertained to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents which was sold for Rs.12,500/-. This land was situated in Kuripirala Village. Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 27.12.1991 pertained to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents which was sold for Rs.21,000/-. Ex.A.2 was a post notification sale and was therefore rightly eschewed from consideration by the reference Court. Similarly, as no evidence was let in to show that the land covered by Ex.A.1 was situated near the acquired land, the reference Court was correct in ignoring the same. No evidence was let in to show that the land covered by Ex.A.2 was proximate to the acquired land. Further, even if Ex.A.2 was to be taken into consideration, the valuation per acre would be at Rs.35,000/- and as the reference Court ultimately fixed the market value of the land at Rs.30,000/- per acre, we see no reason to enhance the same. Viewed thus, no reason is made out to interfere with the well reasoned and cogent order of the reference Court. 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