IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 24th 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. Nos. 1548 and 1549 OF 1998 Between: The Special Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer, SLBC, Nalgonda. ..... Appellant AND Somidi Venkat Reddy And two others. .....Respondents The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO) Since similar questions arise for consideration in these two appeals under the same notiﬁcation, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dat ed 20.08.1996 in O.P. No. 5 of 1990 dated 03.08.1996 and in O.P.No.7 of 1990 on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, the present Appeals are filed. The appellant-Land Acquisition Oﬃcer is the respondent in both the O.Ps. The O.Ps. were ﬁled on reference by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. An extent of Ac.10.38 guntas in Chandampalli village of Nalgonda Mandal was acquired for raising of F.T.L. of Udayasamudram Tank of Pangal village. Notiﬁcation under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was published on 26.01.1989 and the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer after due enquiry awarded compensation of Rs.17,500/- for the land per acre and Rs.4,460/- for the well. Being aggrieved by the said ﬁnding on the request made by the claimants, the reference was made. The reference Court, after due enquiry, enhanced the compensation to Rs.35,000/- from Rs.17,500/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Government. Insofar as A.S.No.1549 of 1998 is concerned, the lands of the respondents/claimants to an extent of Ac.7.28 guntas situated at Sheshammaguda, H/o Panagal village, the reference Court placing reliance on Ex.X.1 sale deed ﬁxed the compensation at Rs.35,000/- per acre. The learned Government Pleader argued that the reference Court taking into consideration Ex.X.1 sale deed enhanced the compensation without any corroborative evidence and as such the ﬁnding of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation is not sustainable inasmuch as the same is exorbitant. Now the point for consideration is whether the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and reasonable and that the order of the reference Court is sustainable? Before the court below, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.X.1 to X.3 sale deeds. According to the evidence of PW.1, the lands in the vicinity of the acquired lands were sold at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. According to PW.2, he has purchased the land covered under Sy.No.209 under Ex.X.1 and as seen from Ex.X.1 each acre of land was costing Rs.40,000/-. It is also the evidence of PW.3 that he purchased the land covered under Ex.X.2 measuring Ac.0.20 guntas of land @ Rs.27,500/-. According to the evidence of PW.4, he has purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas of land for Rs.21,000/- under Ex.X.3. A perusal of the aforesaid documents Exs.X.1 to X.3, it is clear that the sales relates to small extents of lands and as such they do represent the correct market value. The Government did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. Apart from the oral evidence, documentary evidence is also adduced. Exs.X.1 to X.3 sale deeds are prior to 4(1) notiﬁcation. Therefore, the market value noted under Exs.X.1 to X.3, can be taken into consideration while deciding the issue in right perspective. The trial Court while discussing the evidence on record, in particular the documentary evidence Exs.X.1 to X.3, awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre. A perusal of the impugned order and the Award show that the lands under acquisition have potential value. Therefore, viewed from any angle and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the ﬁnding of the Reference Court determining the market value of the land acquired at Rs.35,000/- per acre and enhancement to Rs.8,500/- towards bore well appears to be just and reasonable, inasmuch as the enhancement by the Reference Court is basing on Exs.X.1 to X.3 sale deeds. Accordingly, we see no merits in this appeal. In the result, both the Appeals are dismissed, conﬁrming the order of the Reference Court. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao November 24, 2011 PNV