HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.877 OF 2007 DATED:25-08-2009 BETWEEN: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Waddepally. …Appellant AND Jangam Erraiah & 3 others. …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.877 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Waddepally is directed against the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P.No.77 of 1991 whereunder the compensation was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per acre. The brief facts of the case are as follows: An extent of Ac.1.14 cents of land belonging to the claimants in Sy.No.263, situated in Julekal village was acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 30.12.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the usual procedure, passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre. The claimants- respondents having not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil Court. Before the reference Court, the claimants filed a claim statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants have examined 1st claimant as P.W.1 and examined one Suryanarayana Goud as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. Whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer himself examined as R.W.1 and marked the copy of the award as Ex.B.1. The reference Court after taking into consideration Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 8.7.1982 and Ex.A.2-the copy of order passed in O.P.No.360 of 1990, dated 1.2.1996, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.90,000/- per acre and after deducting 1/3 of the value therefrom towards betterment charges, fixed the net market value at Rs.60,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the impugned order passed by the reference Court is contrary to law and that the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre as against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.6,000/- per acre. It is also submitted that the reference Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.A.1-sale deed under which, the land was purchased for the purpose of house-site. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submitted that the land was acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites and therefore, the reference Court was justified in relying on Ex.A.1, which also show that the land therein was purchased as house-site and therefore, the order of the reference Court is perfectly justified. The point that arises for consideration is ‘whether the reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation basing on Exs.A.1 and A.2? P.W.1 is the 1st claimant. According to him, the land was acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to weaker sections. It is also his case that the lands in Julekal Village are adjacent to the lands of Waddepally Village. Both the villages are having R.T.C. bus facility. According to P.W.2, he purchased an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land in Sy.No.148 for the purpose of house-site for consideration of Rs.6,000/- under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed. According to P.W.1 and P.W.2, the land covered by Ex.A.1 and the acquired land are adjacent to one another. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that the lands adjacent to the acquired land situated in Pallepadu Village were acquired for the purpose of Srisailam Hydro-Electrical Project, and that Ex.A.2-certified copy of the order of the reference Court, Gadwal show that compensation was enhanced to Rs.15 per sq.metre for those lands. Through the evidence of R.W.1, Ex.B.1-copy of Award No.2/1987, dated 5.2.1987 was marked. As seen from the above evidence, it is not in dispute that the house-site covered under Ex.A.1 purchased by P.W.2 is in the same village, where the present lands are acquired. The notification for acquiring the present lands under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 30.10.1986, whereas Ex.A.1 is dated 8.7.1982. Therefore, the reference Court was justified in taking the market value covered by Ex.A.1 as a comparative sale for fixing the market value of the acquired land. The reference Court also considered that the land covered by Ex.A.1 is by the side of road and it is in advantageous position. Therefore, the reference Court has taken the market value of the acquired land at Rs.90,000/- per acre deducting 10% of the value under Ex.A.1. The reference Court is also justified in deducting 1/3rd towards betterment charges and fixed the net market value of the acquired land at Rs.60,000/- per acre apart from granting all statutory benefits. In view of the above discussion, we hold that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. AUGUST 25, 2009 Tsr.