THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.288 of 1998 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali) This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation in pursuance of award No.1/85-86, dated 25-08-1986 and award No.2/86-87, dated 23-09-86, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land of the appellant was acquired pursuant to the draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) dated 02-11-1983, and the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting enquiry, passed the awards, as referred to above, fixing compensation of Rs.6,718.70 ps., in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0- 28½ cents in Sy.No.542 and Rs.481.75 ps., in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.652 insofar as the appellant is concerned. Not satisfied with the said award, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and after such reference, the claim petition was registered as O.P.No.15 of 88. The said O.P. was clubbed along with other O.Ps., which were filed in respect of the land acquired under the same Notification, and disposed of by a common order, dated 28-10-1996. The Reference Court did not accede for enhancement of the compensation and dismissed the claim petition of the appellant holding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and sufficient and that the appellant is only entitled for statutory benefits. This appeal is filed against the said order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced compensation when adequate evidence was adduced in Exs.B-1 and B-2, whereas the learned Government Pleader would contend that the claim petition was rightly dismissed. We have perused the material on record. Exs.B-1 and B-2, which are sought to be relied on by the appellant, are xerox copies of the sale deeds, dated 05-04-1982 and 19-08-1982 respectively. Be it noted that, they are neither original nor certified copies, but they are only xerox copies of the sale deeds. Ex.B-1 relates to a sale in respect of Ac.1-80 cents in Sy.No.83 and another extent of Ac.0-22¼ cents in Sy.No.195. The said extents were purchased for a consideration of Rs.3,600/- and Rs.900/- respectively. PW.2 is the purchaser of the land covered in Ex.B-1 document. The said sale indicates that the rate per acre would be Rs.2,000/- in respect of the first extent and Rs.4,000/- to the second extent. Ex.B-2 relates to a sale in respect of Ac.1-80 cents in Sy.No.83 and another extent of Ac.0-22¼ cents in Sy.No.195. The first extent was purchased for a consideration of Rs.4,500/- and the second extent for Rs.900/-. The said sale indicates that the value would be Rs.2,500/- per acre for the first extent and Rs.4,000/- for the second extent. Comparing the said value of the land with reference to the documents Exs.B-1 and B-2, the Land Acquisition Officer in fact awarded compensation @ Rs.23,000/- per acre. The documents Exs.B-1 and B-2 relied on by the appellant, even if acted upon, would result in the reduction of compensation already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to claim more compensation than awarded in the award proceedings. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 09-08-2010 Prv