HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO LAAS Nos.164, 1,8,9,10,11,163,165 and 379 of 2008 BETWEEN Special Deputy Collector (LA) SRBC, Nandyal v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO LAAS Nos.164, 1,8,9,10,11,163,165 and 379 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) As the issue involved in these appeals is similar in nature, they are clubbed, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the Government acquired an extent of Ac.44.20 cents of land in various survey numbers belonging to the claimants and others situated in Owk village for formation of Gollaleru bund and upstream submersion under Owk valley complex for S.R.B.C. The draft declaration under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette on 17-7-1993, and Draft declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also published subsequently in the Gazettee. The possession of the land was taken over by the Government on 18-12-1992. In order to fix the market value of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer classified the acquired lands into two categories as dry lands without irrigation potentiality i.e. category no.1 and dry lands with irrigation potentiality by private wells i.e. category no.2. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/’- per acre for the dry lands i.e. category no.1 and Rs.46,000/- per acre for dry lands irrigated with water of private wells i.e. category no.2. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Accordingly, the said matter was referred to reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court, after adjudication of the matter, enhanced the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre for the lands without irrigation potentiality and Rs.70,000/- per are for the lands with irrigation potentiality by private wells. Being aggrieved by the same, the State preferred these appeals. Now, the point for consideration is whether the award of compensation granted by the trial Court requires any interference by this Court ? As seen from the impugned common order, on behalf of the claimants, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the reference officer except marking Ex.A.1 copy of the Award No.9/93-94 dated 11-11-1993. Coming to the determination of the compensation of the acquired lands, it is seen from the records that the lands were classified as dry lands without irrigation facility and dry lands irrigated with the water of private wells. As per Ex.A.1 the Land Acquisition Officer, had considered as many as 173 sale transactions prevailing in the village for these two categories of land while fixing the above market value, but the same were not filed by him during the course of enquiry. No oral evidence was adduced by the referring officer. The claimants, in support of their claim, relied on Exs.B.1 and B.2 apart from the oral evidence of RWs. 1 and 2. According to Ex.B.1 sale deed the value of the dry land works out to Rs.75,000/- per acre. Though the sale covered by Ex.B.1 is not in the immediate vicinity of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer clearly observed in Ex.A.1 that the land in Ex.B.1 is situated very nearer to mining industry. The trial Court taken into consideration Ex.B.1 while assessing the market value ( near and around the acquired land), and enhanced the market value ( of the land ) to Rs.45,000/- for the dry lands without irrigation i.e. category no.1 and to Rs.70,000/- per acre for the dry lands with irrigation potentiality by private wells i.e. category no.2. The trial Court, on adjudication of the matter, came to the just conclusion, basing on the evidence adduced by the claimants, that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is on lower side and inconsistent with the existing market value and therefore enhanced the market value of the lands as stated above. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the amount of compensation granted by the Court below requires no interference and accordingly we see no merit in these appeals. 7. Accordingly, all the appeal are dismissed. It is needless to mention that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as per law. No costs. __________ ______________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J DATE 28-3-2012 KK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO LAAS Nos.164, 1,8,9,10,11,163,165 and 379 of 2008 28-3-2012