THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Appeal Suit No. 88 of 1999 Dated: 8-12-2010 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This appeal by the State is directed against the order and decree dated 30-6-1998 in O.P.No. 113 of 1990. An extent of Ac.9-16 guntas in Osirikapalli village, Regode Mandal, Medak District was acquired for providing house-sites to backward class beneficiaries. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 7-1-1986. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation fixing the market value of the land at Rs.8000/- per acre and passed an award therefor on 13-3-1986. Aggrieved, the respondents herein-the claimants sought a reference to the Civil Court for re-determination of the market value and other benefits, under Section 18 of the Act. On a reference being made, the same was numbered as OP No. 113 of 1990 and came to be adjudicated by the reference court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak, who by the order impugned herein dated 30-6- 1998 re-determined the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the State preferred this appeal. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether determination of the market value at Rs.15,000/- by the reference court is vitiated by any error warranting appellate interference? The learned reference court has considered the awards passed in respect of the lands in the neighbouring villages which are similar in characteristics and potentiality vide Exs.A6 to A8. The reference Court held that since the land in the neighbouring villages of Pampad, Siroor, Dhanwar and Borancha are similar to the lands in Osirikapalli (which is the subject matter of the present acquisition), the market value determined by the reference court in respect of those acquisitions constitute a rationale guidance for determination of the market value and accordingly enhanced the market value to Rs.15,000/- per acre. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 were also considered as supporting the documentary evidence-Exs. A6 to A8. It is very fairly submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that as against the order of the reference court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sangareddy dated 9-11-1994 in O.P.No.275 of 1992 (Ex.A6), the State had preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 1582 of 1996, which was dismissed by this Court on 22-4-2000. We find no infirmity in the order of the reference court in O.P.No. 113 of 1990, warranting interference in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 8th December, 2010 _______________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J GRR