IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 1491 OF 1998 Between: The Spl.Dy.Collector (L.A.), SLBC, Devarakonda. Appellant AND Muppa Linga Reddy and others Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) questioning the order and decree dated 23.04.1993 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P. No. 3 of 1988. The draft notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette on 04.03.1987 for acquisition of an extent of Ac.38.3 ½ guntas of land situated in various survey numbers of Gundlapally village of Nalgonda Mandal and District for excavation of S.L.B.C. canal in the reach from K.M.81.00 to K.M.83.515. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 18.05.1987 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,300/- per acre. On reference at the instance of the respondents – claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P. No. 3 of 1988, by order dated 23.04.1993, enhanced the market value of the land to Rs10,000/- per acre. Hence, the appeal. The reference Court enhanced the compensation based on Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 07.03.1986 under which 20 guntas of the land was sold @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. One of the claimant was examined as PW.2 who is the vendor of Ex.A.1 sale deed. Though Ex.A.1 sale deed reflects the market value of Rs.30,000/- per acre, but the reference Court enhanced only the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre. Admittedly the lands are situated in th e Nalgonda Mandal and District and in fact the land situated in Nalgonda Mandal are fit for cultivation also and after excavation of the canal the dry lands have been converted into wet lands. We are of the opinion that enhancement of compensation based on Ex.A.1 sale deed, cannot be said as excessive. The said compensation fixed by the Court below is just and reasonable. In fact, the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants was not at all be rebutted and no evidence, neither oral or documentary, has been adduced on behalf of the Government. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao Dt.24th November, 2011 PNV