HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No. 1987 of 2001 Date: 23-06-2011 Between: Akula Hanumantha Rao (died) and others ….. appellants And The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Ongole ……… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No. 1987 of 2001 ORDER: (Per KSAR, J) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07-07-2000 made in L.O.P.No.61 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 2. The Reference Court dismissed the reference in L.O.P.No.61 of 1989 filed under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act while confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.15/88-89, dated 18-03-1989. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants mainly urged that the Reference Court erred in holding that the sale deeds in Exs.B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-9 are not proved and further failed to consider that the acquired land is located opposite to RTC bus stand and urged for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, while supporting the order of the Reference Court, requested the Court to remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh disposal while taking into consideration the sale deeds in Exs.B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-9. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to set aside the order of the Reference Court? 6. In order to prove the claim of compensation, the claimants before the Reference Court got examined as many as six witnesses i.e., RWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-9 on their behalf. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, none were examined, however, Ex.A-1, award, was got marked. 7. During the course of evidence, Exs.B-4 to B-9 were marked through the evidence of RW-4. The aforesaid documents relate to the sale transactions of the lands in Sy.No.170/1 in the year 1987, in Sy.No.172 in the year 1987, in Sy.No.171/2 in the year 1986, in Sy.No.169 in the year 1988, in Sy.No.170 in the year 1986 and in Sy.No.170 in the year 1987. The Reference Court did not give any credence to the aforesaid documents on the ground that none of the parties were examined on the above said documents. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and the learned Government Pleader, though the registered documents, much less the aforesaid documents are marked, non- examination of the parties on those documents would not effect the very validity of those documents. As RW-1 got marked the aforesaid documents in the Reference Court, the Reference Court should look into the contents therein and give a finding on that score. Simply because the parties are not examined on the said documents, not considering those documents by the Reference Court cannot be swallowed by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the adverse finding of the Reference Court on the aforesaid documents is not sustainable. 8. Nextly the Reference Court observed that there was prior notification relates to the schedule lands in the year 1978, and after the same was quashed, though possession was taken on 01-07-1978, another notification was issued on 05-05-1988 by the Government followed by the award and therefore, there is every possibility for creation of Exs.B-4 to B-9 for the purpose of claiming higher rate of compensation anticipating the acquisition, which, in my view, is erroneous and illusion. The claimants are not parties to Exs.B-4 to B-9 and therefore, the question of alleged creation as observed by the Reference Court does not arise and the finding of the Reference Court on that score is also not sustainable. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, while taking into consideration the documentary evidence of Exs.B-4 to B-9, we are of the firm view that the matter to be remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the order of the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with a direction to dispose of the same expeditiously by giving opportunity to both the parties. The observations, if any, made in this order will not, in any way, influence the Reference Court while disposing of the matter. 11. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 23-06-2011 YCR