ZTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1225 OF 2002 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Bibinagar …Appellant Vs. P.Ramachandra Reddy and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1225 OF 2002 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.21 of 1988 on the file of the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short "the Act") enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.2.00 of land in Sy.No.290 at Neelambavi H/o Moddumpally village of Bibinagar Mandal belonging to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of society and the Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an award enquiry fixed the market value at Rs.7,500/- per acre and as the claimants were not satisfied with the said award, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimants maintained that the value given by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and the market value was Rs.8/- per square yard and they are entitled for all the statutory benefits. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1 and on behalf of the referring officer, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation which is under challenge. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS:- In support of the claim of the claimants, the second claimant was examined as PW.1 and he deposed about the relationship with the other claimants and according to him he further relied on Ex.B-1 sale deed wherein one Fakeer Balamma wife of Bal Reddy sold the land to one M.Satyanarayana @ Rs.8/- per square yard and when compared to that property under Ex.A-1 the acquired property is having more potential. PW.2 is claims to be a purchaser under Ex.A-1 of an extent of 300 square yards and claims to have paid a consideration of Rs.8/- per square yard. In cross examination of RW.1 the location of the property was considered. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that there is no construction shown in the property purchased under Ex.A-1 and there will be a difference of each land from location and advantage and though the claimants pleaded that they are getting annual income of Rs.9,000/- per year no document is filed and therefore the claim of the claimants cannot be accepted. But however, it was found that the acquired land is nearer to Bhongir and the land is found for house sites and accordingly ordered the market value at Rs.15,000/-. The learned Senior Civil Judge has given sufficient reasons for enhancement and mostly relied upon the location of the land and potentialities and also the fact that the lands are acquired for house sites. The lower court also granted all statutory benefits. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the lower court. Accordingly, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The points therefore answered accordingly. The Appeal Suit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 20-1-2011 TSNR