IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH [27TH] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2298 of 2000 Between: The Special Tahasildar, Land Acquisition, Unit IV, Jangareddigudem. … Appellant And: Mahankali Venkateswara Rao and and others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2298 of 2000 JUDGMENT:[Per GVS, J] This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Deputy Tahsildar-cum-Land Acquisition officer seeking to assail the order dated 21.08.1996 in OP No.39 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, wherein the reference Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.30,000/- per acre in respect of claimant No.1 and Rs.27,000/- per acre each in respect of claimant Nos.2 and 3. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record. 3. An extent of Ac.2.00 agricultural land belonging to the claimants situate in RS Nos.169/1B, 178/2B, 178/2c of Chakradevarapalli village was acquired by the Government for formation of left canal under Yerrakaluva Reservoir. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.04.1986 and possession of the land was taken subsequently on 20.11.1992. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition officer passed award on 06.02.1988 fixing the market value at Rs.16,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants, sought reference to the civil Court seeking enhancement at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Accordingly reference was made under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of the market value. 4. During enquiry before the reference Court, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 5. It is not disputed that out of total extent of Ac.2.00 acquired, the 3rd claimant, who was examined as PW.1, was having Ac.0-37 cents, 2nd claimant was having Ac.0-74 cents and 1st claimant was having Ac.0-89 cents. PW.1 testified for himself and on behalf of the other claimants to the effect that two crops were raised in all extents making use of bore well water and they were deriving net income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per acre per annum by raising tobacco, chilly, paddy and other commercial crops. According to PW.1, the market value of the land was Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre as on the date of the notification. In support of the said claim, he filed Ex.A.1 registration extract of the sale deed dated 20.02.1987, whereunder Ac.1.50 cents of agricultural land was sold by PW.5 for Rs.48,950/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.32,632/- per acre; under Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 24.08.1983 one Bhadrakalamma sold Ac.0-84 cents of land at the rate of 32,000/- per acre. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that the said land covered by Ex.A.2 is at a distance of 3 KMs, whereas the land covered by Ex.A.1 was at a distance of 1 KM from the acquired land. He also filed Ex.A.5 award copy in Award No.36 of 1988 dated 17.10.1988, whereunder the lands in Devulapalli, which is neighbouring the acquired lands, were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.21,875/- per acre. Though the transaction under Ex.A.1 was proved through the evidence of PW.5, the vendor, the same cannot be taken into consideration, as the said sale deed was executed subsequent to the date of the notification. However, the transaction covered by Ex.A.2 sale deed which is proved through the evidence of PW.2 shows that the neighbouring land was sold at Rs.32,000/- per acre in the year 1983, which is less than three years from the date of the notification. That apart, the copy of the award Ex.A.5 also shows that in 1988, the award was passed in respect of the lands in Devulapalli village, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.21,875/- per acre. It is also in the evidence that the said lands and the acquired lands are situated in close proximity to each other and are having same potentiality. The evidence on record also established that the acquired land is agricultural land, where two crops raised, including commercial crops like tobacco, chilly etc. Under those circumstances, the reference Court having regard to the nature of the land and its potentiality for raising two crops in a year, including commercial crops and also the fact that the lands are fertile and in respect of similarly situated lands, the market value was fixed at Rs.22,000/- in the year 1988, had chosen to fix the market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per acre in respect of claimants 2 and 3 and Rs.30,000/- per acre in respect of claimant No.1. The evidence on record also established that even if the capitalization method is adopted taking the income on the land at a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per year for one acre, the compensation payable would work out to the same extent. Thus, viewed from any angle, the compensation as enhanced and fixed by the reference Court is justifiable and there are no supervening circumstances warranting interference with the same. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal and the enhancement made by the reference Court in respect of the market value, together with other statutory benefits, is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th April, 2010. Bss/lrkm