THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR A.S.NO. 1510 OF 1999 Date of Disposal: 25.2.2010 Between: Land Acquisition Officer …Appellant and Mulamada Ram Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR A.S.NO. 1510 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, J) 1. This is an appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy district, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against the order dated 31.10.1998 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad in OP No. 6 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre, as against Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. An extent of 0-02 guntas, 0-10 guntas, 0-25 guntas, 0-23 guntas, 0-17 guntas, 0-20 guntas, 0-05 guntas, 0-10 guntas, 0-19 guntas, 0-09 guntas, 0-38 guntas, 0-24 guntas and 0-14 guntas, in S.Nos. 2/A, 310, 250, 248, 249, 311, 226, 227, 237, 238, 247, 3 and 309 respectively situated at Chinchalpet village in Ranga Reddy district, belonging to the respondents-claimants was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying a railway line by issuing a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 26.3.1993. After an enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value, the claimants sought reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act and after reference was made to the civil court, the respondents-claimants appeared before the lower court and filed claim statements claiming compensation at Rs.75,000/- per acre. Claimants 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 filed a memo adopting the claim statement of claimant No.6. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land, claimants examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.A1-original registered sale deed and A2-certified copy of registered sale deed. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-award and Ex.B2-toposketch were marked. P.W.1 is the son of claimant No.5, P.W.2 is the claimant No.6, P.W.3 is the claimant No.8, and PWs 4 and 5 are vendees of land under Exs.A1 and A2 respectively. 3. P.W.1, who is the son of claimant No. 5, stated that his father is the owner of 0-20 guntas of land in S.No. 318 situated at Chinchalpet village which was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying railway line. He stated that in the acquired land they used to raise chilly, paddy etc. P.W.2 who is the claimant No.6 stated that his land in S.Nos. 226 and 227 situated at Chinchalpet village was acquired which was having black cotton soil and they used to raise commercial crops and get net income of Rs.10,000/- per acre per annum. He further stated that the acquired land is very near to Chinchalpet village which is having modern facilities like Electricity, Transport and School. P.W.3 who is the claimant No.8 stated that his land to an extent of 0-24 guntas in S.No. 3 and 0-14 guntas in S.No. 309 was acquired for laying railway line and they used to raise commercial crops like green gram, cotton etc and get net income of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per year per acre. P.W.4 is the vendee under Ex.A1 and he stated that he purchased an extent of half acre for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- from one Janga Reddy under Ex.A1 and the said land was similar to the acquired land. P.W.5 who is also vendee under Ex.A2 stated that he purchased the land an extent of 0-05 guntas in Sy.No. 150/a/1 for a consideration of Rs.18,200/- under Ex.A2. The lower court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, found that the acquired land was black cotton soil and fit for cultivation of commercial crops and considering its precise location, the lower court fixed the market value at Rs.12,000/- per acre. In our view, the market value fixed by the lower court is just and reasonable and as such no interference is called for. 4. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.25.2.2010 KR