HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No. 3504 of 2000 Date: 30-06-2011 Between: Special Deputy Collector (LAO), SLBC, Devarakonda. ……… Appellant and R. Iddaiah and others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No. 3504 of 2000 ORDER: (Per KSAR, J) This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 02-07-1993 passed in O.P.No.51 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Nalgonda. The appellant herein is the respondent in the said O.P. 2. The lands of the claimants situated at Ghanpur village were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of excavation of S.L.B.C. Canal at Ghanpur village. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry and while considering the crucial documents, passed the award on 04-03-1986 fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.5,000/- per acre. The claimants, being not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for reference and accordingly, a reference was made to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. The claimants filed their claim statements before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. In order to prove their claim, claimant No.4 was examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Reference Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, enhanced the market value from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that the enhancement of compensation from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre is not on any rational basis and sought for reduction of the compensation. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to reduce the market value of Rs.10,000/- per acre as urged by the learned Government Pleader? 8. As seen from the impugned order, the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, S.L.B.C., Devarakonda, under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value. The acquisition of the land is for the purpose of excavation of the S.L.B.C. canal of Ghanpur village in various survey numbers. Admittedly the claimants are the owners of the acquired land. The draft notification and the draft declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act respectively were published in the A.P. Gazette. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted award enquiry under Section 5(a) of the Act and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,000/- per acre for the fertile dry land. He has also fixed the compensation towards the agricultural wells situated in Sy.No.553/2A, 538 and 573/2 at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.35,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer has also observed in his award that there is a garden of 84 sweet oranges and 32 acid lime plants in Sy.No.573/2 and according to the estimation made by the Horticulture Officer, Nalgonda, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is awarded which includes the land value. 9. PW-1 is none other than claimant No.4 in the O.P. According to his evidence, the Government has acquired the lands situated in Ghanpur village under award No.1 of 1986, dated 04-03- 1986 and in the acquired land, there are wells, trees etc. In support of the same, he filed Exs.A-1 to A-5, certified copies of the pahani patrikas. Admittedly the acquired land is situated at Hyderabad- Nagarjuna Sagar road, and they are being cultivated under the irrigated wells and there are fruit bearing trees. The claimants claimed Rs.30,000/- per acre for the acquired land as it is having all facilities besides fruit garden. Ex.A-6 is the original registered sale deed document No.589/84, dated 30-03-1984 for a value of Rs.6,000/- per acre for the land in survey No.436/A situated at Ghanpur village, which shows the prevailing market value of the lands at the time of acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration Ex.A-6 while fixing the market value. As seen from Ex.A-6, it was executed six months prior to the notification of the present acquisition. Though the claimants claimed that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.30,000/- per acre, no evidence is placed before the Reference Court in support of their contention. Even if the document in Ex.A-6 is taken into consideration, the value of the land in the vicinity is about Rs.6,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer has not denied that the acquired land is situated in Hyderabad-Nagarjuna Sagar road and it is covered by fruit bearing trees. The Reference Court, while taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, coupled with the document in Ex.A-6 and the material on record, rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. 10. Furthermore, the acquisition is of the year 1984 and the value of the land is rising from time to time and admittedly the acquired land is yielding income from the fruit bearing trees as observed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 11. With regard to the fruit bearing trees, the Reference Court asserted that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the fruit bearing trees is quite just and reasonable as per the evidence on record. 12. In view of the above circumstances, the market value of Rs.10,000/- per acre enhanced by the Reference Court is quite just and reasonable. Therefore, the order of the Reference Court, while enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre, is sustainable. Hence, there are no merits in the Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Reference Court including the statutory benefits payable to the claimants. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J ________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 30-06-2011 YCR