HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Appeal Suit No.2608 of 2001 Date: 21-6-2011 Between Govt. of A.P. through (L.A.O) Tahsildar, Sadasivpet, Mandal Revenue Officer, Sadasivpet … Appellant/ Respondent and B.Ramulu (Died), Per L.Rs Respondents 2 and 3 … Respondents/ Claimants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Appeal Suit No.2608 of 2001 Judgment: (per N.V.Ramana, J.) Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28-4-1995 in O.P.No.369 of 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 3. The land of the respondents-claimants measuring Ac.1-20 gts., in Survey No.452/1 situated in Maddikunta village was acquired by the State for the purpose of providing house-sites to the Scheduled Tribes at Maddikunta village. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 30-11-1983 has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,425/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said determination, reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for short) was sought and the reference Court has awarded Rs.4/- per square yard instead of Rs.1,425/- per acre determining that the land is a house-site. The reference Court has taken into consideration that Exs.A-1 and A-2 sale deeds dated 14-9-1983 and 30-11-1983, respectively, were prior to the draft notification in the year 1983 and also placing reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 documents relied upon by them held that the acquired lands are of similar in nature and they have got same potentiality. On behalf of the appellant-LAO nobody were examined and no material was placed on record to deny the claim of the claimants. The reference Court while observing that the land acquired is potential land and there is no reason to disbelieve Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are prior to the draft notification, came to the conclusion that Rs.8/- per square yard can be fixed as the value of the acquired land, however, deducted Rs.4/- out of it towards laying roads and other community developments and finally fixed at Rs.4/- per square yard. 4. We have considered the said award and also the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondents- claimants, the land is very next to National Highway No.9 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 documents are the sale deeds relate to the neighbouring lands, which clearly shows that the acquired land is valuable more than the compensation granted earlier. 6. We are satisfied with the reasoning given by the reference Court in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.4/- per square yard instead of Rs.1,425/- per acre as fixed by the LAO. 7. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the reference Court. However, the claimants are not entitled to any interest for the period from the date of taking possession till the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and also to the additional sum as per the judgment of the apex Court in R.L. JAIN v. DDA[1]. 8. In the result, the appeal suit is partly allowed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 21st June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Appeal Suit No.2608 of 2001 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by NVR, J.) 21st June, 2011. [1] (2004) 4 SCC 79