HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2197 of 1999 JUDGMENT: [per AGR, J] This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 [for short ‘the Act’] is by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Bodhan, challenging the award and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in OP No.37 of 1993, wherein, he enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.25,900/- per acre. 2. An extent of Ac.3.05 guntas of land belonging to 20 persons in various survey numbers, situated in Kandkurthi village, was acquired for the purpose of construction of an approach road to the bridge on Godavari river. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 09.05.1992, followed by draft declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after giving necessary notices under Sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Act, and after obtaining necessary sales statistics from the Sub Registrar for three years preceeding to the notification, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,000/- per acre by his award dated 30.03.1993 under Ex.B.1. Thirteen claimants, who own Ac.2.29 guntas of land, having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for reference to the civil Court and the matter was referred to the civil court in the above OP. 3. To prove the market value of the acquired land, on behalf of the claimants PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were got marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and the award dated 30.03.1993 was marked as Ex.B.1. 4. The 4th claimant was examined as PW.1, who deposed that at the time of the acquisition, the value of the acquired land was at Rs.50,000/- per acre, whereas, the first claimant, who was examined as PW.2, deposed that the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition was Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The claimant No.7, who was examined as PW.3, also deposed that the market value of the acquired land was at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. As per the evidence of PW.1, the lands were acquired for formation of a by-pass road, leading to Dharmabad and the lands are situated adjacent to the Abadi of the village. The new road was formed to link the newly constructed bridge. Earlier also, the lands of the same village were acquired for laying a road to Dharmabad, in which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.6,000/- per acre and on reference being made to Civil Court in OP No.114 of 1987, the reference Court fixed the market value for the acquired lands at Rs.18,000/- per acre vide Ex.A.4 dated 06.09.1991. The date of notification for the lands acquired in OP No.114 of 1987 was on 14.08.1984. 5. PW.4-Village Administrative Officer corroborated the evidence of PW.1 in all respects about the potentiality of the land and the earlier acquisition of the land, payment of the compensation etc. Under Ex.A.6 registered sale deed dated 09.04.1994, PW.3 purchased an extent of one gunta at Rs.1200/-. His evidence shows that the acquired land and the land purchased by him are nearby to each other. But he admitted that he yet to construct a house in the plot purchased by him, in the year 1984. He further deposed that his junior paternal uncle and other relatives also purchased lands along with him in Sy.No.358/A. The only suggestion made to him was that the land purchased by him is far away from the acquired land, which works to Rs.48,000/- per acre. 6. Keeping in view of the fact that the market value of the lands were increasing year by year and the acquisition of the lands covered by Ex.A.4 is of the year 1984, the reference Court, after giving 5% escalation i.e., Rs.925/- per acre, instead of Rs.1850/- per acre at 10%, fixed the market value at Rs.25,900/- per acre, which is a reasonable compensation. In fact, the claimants are entitled to 10% escalation in view of the specific sale under Ex.A.6. Therefore, the fixation of the market value by the reference Court, by giving 5% escalation, is reasonable. 7. It is also brought to our notice that the Land Acquisition Officer, who filed appeal in AS (SR) No.13638 of 1993 against the judgment in OP No.114 of 1987, with an application to condone the delay of 160 days in representing the appeal SR, has been dismissed by this Court and the compensation fixed therein attained finality. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 13.04.2010 bss