THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.638 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) by the appellants/claimants, is directed against the order dated 05.11.1998 passed in L.A.O.P.No.415 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. 2. An extent of Ac.5.70 cents of land along with palmyra trees situated in Sy.No.223/1, of Griddalur village, Sidapuram Mandal, Nellore District, belonging to the claimant, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to Backward Class people, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 14.08.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, taking the value of the acquired land as per the basic value register into consideration, passed Award No.1/88-89, dated 31.03.1989 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,900/- per acre, and Rs.15/- per tree for 14 Palmyra trees acquired. 3. The claimant received the compensation amount under protest, and sought to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the reference Court. On reference being made, the claimant appeared before the reference Court and filed claim statement claiming compensation of Rs.9,600/- per acre. 4. To prove the market value, the claimant himself was examined as CW.1 and also examined one more witness as CW.2 and got marked EX.A.1-Certified copy of the award of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. On behalf of the referring officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer, sydapuram, was examined as RW.1. 5. During the pendency of the trial before the reference Court, the claimant died and his legal representatives C-2 and C-3 were brought on record vide orders in I.A.No.84 of 1998 dated 6.08.1998. 6. The reference Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by the impugned order dated 5.11.1998 declined to enhance the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, but enhanced the compensation awarded for 14 Palmyra trees acquired from Rs.15/- to Rs.30/- per each tree. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal. 7. CW.1 in his evidence deposed that he presented a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer, claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre for the acquired land of Ac.5.70 cents in S.No.223/1 of Griddalur Village. He also deposed that Gudur-Turimerla-Podalakur R & B road is situated on the South, the lemon garden of Nagapanaidu is on the East, the land of Gamandla Krishnaiah is on the North and the tank poramboke is on the West of the acquired land. He used to raise chillies, ragi crop and cotton crop in the acquired land and getting a net income of Rs.2000/- to Rs.2,500/- per acre. The acquired land was under the ayacut of Kotta Cheruvu. The tank was constructed in the year 1982. Since the canals were not ready by the date of acquisition, he was getting tank water. He also stated that in the year 1995 the Government acquired the lands belonging to Ramireddy Ramachendra Reddy and Kalluru Audilakshamma in S.Nos.200 and 202/1B situated near to his village, for the very same purpose of providing house sites, for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.26,039/- and Rs.4,563/- respectively. On reference being made, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, in L.A.O.P.No.260 of 1988 enhanced the compensation to Rs.6000/- per acre, which was marked as Ex.A.1. 8. CW.2 is a Single Window President of the said village at the relevant point of time. He stated that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.10,000/-. But he did not produce any registered sale deed of the said value to prove the same. 9. RW.1, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram Mandal, who is the referring officer at the relevant point of time, stated that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.2900/- per acre. He denied the suggestion that the market value is ranging from Rs.9,600/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. He admitted that in the preliminary report, the Mandal Revenue Officer recommended for payment of Rs.5000/- per acre. He also admitted that the market value has been fixed basing on the basic value register. 10. In this appeal the claimants are not seeking any enhancement with regard to Palmyra trees. They are seeking enhancement only with regard to the land acquired. In fact, the claimants have restricted their claim only to Rs.6000/- per acre alone, and paid the Court fees accordingly. 11. Now the only question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.6,000/- per acre as awarded by the reference Court in Ex.A.1, or not? 12. We have perused Ex.A.1-certified copy of the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.260 of 1988 dated 4.03.1987. As per Ex.A.1-judgment an extent of Ac.2.75 cents of land in S.No.200 belonging to Ramireddy Ramachendra Reddy and Ac.1.53 cents of land in S.No.202/1B belonging to Kalluru Audilakshamma, situated in the same Griddaluru village were acquired by the Government for the same purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28.11.1985 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.4/85-86 dated 19.03.1986 fixing the compensation @ Rs.26,039/- and Rs.4,563/- per acre respectively, and on reference being made, the reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.6000/- per acre. 13. Having regard to the fact that the lands under Ex.A.1 are also situated in the same village and acquired for the very same purpose and they are very nearer to the lands acquired under the present notification, we do not see any reason as to why the claimants are not entitled to the same market value as was fixed by the reference Court in Ex.A.1. Though the claimants are entitled to the market value @ Rs.6000/- per acre basing on Ex.A.1-judgment in which 4 (1) notification was issued on 28.11.1985, i.e., two years prior to the acquisition of lands under the present notification, with 20% escalation, but as the claimants have restricted their claim only to Rs.6000/- per acre, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to get the same compensation as was awarded under Ex.A.1. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.2,900/- to Rs.6000/- per acre. It is needless to observe that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits under the amended Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 6th October, 2010 Js.