THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.39 OF 1999 Dated. -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Siddipet …Appellant Vs. Linga Reddy and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.39 of 1999 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.29 of 1985 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Siddipet. An extent of Ac.3.01 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.772/1 to 772/4 situated at Tadkapally village was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society and a draft notification was issued on 11-07-1999 and the Land Acquisition Officer conducted the inquiry and passed the award for Rs.5,000/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer and accordingly a reference was made to the civil court. The claimants pleaded that the market value of the acquired land is nearly Rs.16,000/- with potentialities, which was the claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the referring officer none were examined but Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. After considering the material on record, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the market value from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS: In support of the claim, the first claimant was examined as PW.1. PW.2 who was stated to have purchased Ac.0.04 guntas of land for Rs.1600/- under Ex.A-1 sale deed from claimant No.2 on 05-06-1979 was examined and order copy in O.P.No.70 of 1985 was marked as Ex.A-2. The learned Subordinate Judge found that Ex.A-2 order relates to a neighbouring village in Marpadaga and though the said village is adjacent, since there are sale deeds available in the village, it cannot be taken into consideration. He also found that the notification under the present dispute is in 1979 and whereas the notification pertaining to Ex.A-2 is in 1984. The lower court also took into consideration the potentialities of the land acquired and also accepted the authenticity of the sale transaction under Ex.A-1 which is supported by the evidence of PW.2, taking into consideration that Ex.A-1 relates to a small extent of land and also the fact that the village is a developed one, 50% of the deduction was made from the consideration under Ex.A-1 and fixed the market value at Rs.9,000/- per acre. As can be seen from the material on record, there seems to be no error committed by the learned Subordinate Judge in coming to a conclusion and the claim of the claimants cannot be said to be devoid of merits. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the lower court. Accordingly, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR