THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT NO.545 OF 1998 Date: 22nd December, 2011 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer (L.A.O) Pedda Adiserapally …..Appellant And Islavath Seetharam and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.545 OF 1998 JUDGMENT:- (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedda Adiserlapally filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act) questioning the enhancement granted in a reference under Section 18 of the Act by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda (Reference Court) by its order dated 20.8.1996 in O.P.No.58 of 1992. 2. The land acquired was Acs.6-70 cents in survey No.299 of Perwala Village, Pedda Adiserlapally Mandal, Nalgonda District and the purpose of acquisition was to provide house sites to weaker sections. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the compensation @ 7,300/- per acre and not satisfied with that the claimants preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court after considering Ex.X-1 a registered sale deed dated 31.1.1986 doubled the compensation to Rs.14,600/- per acre. Section 4(1) notification was dated 3.2.1992 and the draft declaration was approved and published in the Gazette dated 10.2.1992. 4. It is seen that this Ex.X-1 is dated 31.1.1986 and pertains to 50 guntas of land in survey No.287 of Perwala Village wherein the sale consideration was shown at Rs.10,000/- per acre. P.W.2 has spoken about the same. That sale was in the year 1986 which is six years prior to the date of 4(1) notification which is 3.2.1992. 5. The Reference Court considered this Ex.X-1 as a comparable sale on the ground that the land covered by it is nearer to the acquired land and thus fixed compensation at Rs.14,600/- per acre on the ground that since 1986 there have been increase in prices of the lands. This reason given by the Reference Court can be said to be convincing. 6. We, accordingly, find no reason to interfere with the judgment under reference and this appeal is dismissed with costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 22nd December 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT NO.545 OF 1998 JUDGMENT:- (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR) Date: 22nd December, 2011