THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2670 OF 2000 Dated. 25-02-2011 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni …Appellant Vs. ..Respondent Chinna Narsaiah THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2670 OF 2000 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The Appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.174 of 1988 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Adoni enhancing the compensation of the acquired lands from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.8,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land belonging to the claimant in this O.P was said to have been acquired. A batch of O.Ps were tried together under a common reference and a common order was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Adoni on 27-09-1989. The lands at Urukunda, Kemavaram and Chirtapalli villages of Kowthalam Mandal were acquired for construction of Madhavaram Balancing Reservoir and a draft notification was given and published on 04-12-1988 and an award enquiry was conducted and the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at Rs.2600/- and Rs.2800/- respectively for dry land and Rs.4,000/- per wet land. As the claimants were not satisfied with the same, a reference was made to the court below. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? 2. To what relief? POINTS: The order of the lower court clearly goes to show that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the sale statistics and the award itself shows that even in 1995 dry land was sold at Rs.7,600/-. The lower court also took into consideration that the capitalisation method is applied, the value of the dry land would come to Rs.8,000/-. The lower court also has taken into consideration the fact that the wet lands are double crop and the market value of the acquired lands has to be fixed at Rs.16,000/.-The lower court relied upon mostly on the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer and also the potentiality and location of the lands. It has also taken note of the fact that the lands are situated in three villages and there cannot be any common market value to be fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and that without taking into consideration the real value of the lands under the sale transactions gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer the compensation was fixed. Therefore, the lower court while enhancing the compensation, with regard to agricultural lands belonging to the ryots whose livelihood is agriculture, has given a reasonable compensation considering the further fact that even by a capitalisation method, the market value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is not proper. Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, since the lower court has assessed the evidence and came to a conclusion about the reasonableness of the value, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the court below. Accordingly the points are answered against the appellant/referring officer. Accordingly the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR