HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No. 3606 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S. Appa Rao) Aggrieved by the order, dated 28-07-1995 passed in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajam, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the claimants to an extent of 1.99.0 Hectares in S.Nos.309/1, 310/2, 310/3, 312 and 313 of Palakonda village, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Agricultural Market Yard, through the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.3 of 1991 dated 15-12-1991 fixing the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs.23,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Reference Court. 3. During the course of enquiry before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Whereas on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were got marked. 4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court, through the impugned order, confirmed the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants contended that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation from Rs.23,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- per acre, as the acquired land is having potential value for house sites and the surrounding area is covered by commercial activities which are in existence and that the complainants were not given opportunity to adduce evidence. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel filed a bunch of documents seeking to receive as additional evidence and to give opportunity to examine the witnesses on behalf of the claimants-appellants. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, while supporting the order of the Reference Court, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the claimants- appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and whether the impugned order is sustainable? 8. A perusal of the impugned order, it shows that the Reference Court in para-6 of the order narrated the conducted of the claimants in not prosecuting the matter inspite of giving reasonable opportunity to them. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants fairly conceded the conduct of the claimants before the Reference Court in not adducing the evidence inspite of reasonable opportunity given to them, however, he pleaded the Court for indulgence to give opportunity to the claimants to establish their claim for enhancement of compensation by filing documents relating to the crucial period of acquisition. 10. A perusal of the bunch of documents filed by the learned counsel shows that they are alleged to be the documents pertaining to the crucial period of acquisition. The impugned order also reads that none were examined and no documents were filed on behalf of the claimants in the Reference Court. Admittedly, the land in question was acquired for the purpose of constructing agricultural market yard. 11. In view of the above backdrop of the matter, we feel that it is just and proper to give an opportunity to the claimants-appellants to adduce evidence of their choice before the Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation if they are otherwise entitled. 12. Therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, on their respective contentions. The Reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of. No costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date:16-12-2011 YCR