THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BHAVANI PRASAD LAAS Nos.103 of 2008, 189 of 2007, 104, 105, 106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,126, and 407 of 2008. between The Special Deputy Collector (LA ) SRBC, Nandya, Kurnool District And B. Hari rao and. between THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BHAVANI PRASAD LAAS Nos.103 of 2008 and batch Common Judgment : ( Per Sri GM, J ) These appeals at the instance of the State arises out of the common judgment and decree passed by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, with regard to acquisition of lands in an extent of Ac.104.38 cents for improvement to Gollaleru Vagu for SRBC, Owk Valley Complex. The facts in brief leading to filing of all these appeals are that the Special Deputy Collecto5 ( LA), S.R.B.C., Nandyal has acquired the land in an extent of 104-38 cents belonging to the claimants and others situated in Owk Village and Mandal for improvement of Gollaleru Vagu for S.R.B.C., Owk Valley Complex. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on 5-9-2002, and draft declaration under section 6, which was also published simultaneously. In order to fix the market value of the land under acquisiton, the Land Acquisition Officer has classified the lands into three catgories viz (I) Double Crop Wet registered lands ( II) Double Crop wet unregistered lands ( III) Double Crop registered wet lands but not maintained well. The Land Acquisition has collected the sale stastistics for the preceding three years and in all he has considered as many as 149 sales occurred in the Owk village, however, discarded the other sale deeds and considering the earlier Award No.8/97-98 in the village, the Land Acquisition Officer, as per the three categories of the lands, has fixed the market value of the first category of land ( double crop wet registered lands) at Rs.89,000/- per acre, 2nd category of lands ( double crop wet unregistered lands ) at Rs.85,000/- per acre, 3rd category of lands ( double crop registered wet lands but not well maintained) at Rs.80,000/- per acre with other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference to the Civil Court seeking enhancement of the compensation and the above O.Ps. were referred to the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal wherein all the O.Ps. were clubbed and common evidence was laid by the respective parties. Before the reference Court to substantiate the claim of the claimants, one Gudipatichinna Venkataramu claimant in the main O.P. No.178 of 2005 was examined as R.W.1 and Bugga Ramaswamy who is the vendee of Ex.B.1 as R.W.2, and marked Ex.B.1 which is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 25-6-2002 executed by Burgula Nagalakshmamma in favour of Ramaswamy for an extent of Ac.1.24 cents for Rs.1,83,500/-. On behalf of the Referring Officer, none were examined but Ex.A.1 copy of Award No.1/2003 dated 23-5-2003 was marked. The reference Court on consideration of the evidence on record, enhanced the market value of the land - to Rs.1,29,000/- per acre, for category II to Rs.1,23,000/- per acre and for category III it enhanced to Rs.1,16,000/-. Questioning the said common judgment and decree, the present Appeals have been filed. During the course of arguments, one Bugga Venkata Ramana respondent-claimant in LAAS No.134 of 2008 filed IAASMP No.429 of 2010 to allow him to lead evidence for making the judgment in LAOP No.696 of 2007 and batch dated 31-8-2009 passed by the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal as Ex.B.2, since the same was pronounced on 31-8- 2009. It is however brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader that the State has preferred appeal against the judgment and decree in LAOP No.696 of 2007 and batch and it is yet to be numbered. However, having regard to the circumstances that the judgment in the above LAOP was made available recently the petition is ordered. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals vehemently contended that the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Officer, and that the Reference Court ought not to have relied on Ex.B.1 sale deed which came into existence only 70 days prior to 4(1) notification and the same was purposefully brought into existence at the instance of the claimants to claim more compensation. It is further contended that if Ex.B.1 is discarded, no other document is available to enhance the compensation and that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in A. RAHMAN BAKRAN ( died ) AND OTHERS v. LAO AND RDO, NIZAMABAD ( (1) 2000 (5) ALD 149 (DB) ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants by drawing our attention to the evidence of the claimants, more so of R.Ws. 1 and 2 contended that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is based on the material available on record and therefore no interference is warranted in these appeals. In Rahman Bakran’s case ( supra), as no specific evidence, either oral or documentary evidence in support of the claimants therein for enhancement of the compensation was adduced, the reasoning adopted by the court below in awarding the compensation is not proper and in those circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has remitted the matter back to the court below for fresh enquiry and disposal. In the instant case, R.W.1 who is one of the claimant in the batch of cases. It is deposed by R.W.1 that acquired land in these batch of O.Ps. are situated on the left side of the Owk –Tadipathri Road and they are raising Paddy crop and that the acquired lands were being irrigated with the water from Paleru, Gollaleru and Thimmaraju tank and that all the acquired lands are double crop wet lands and they used to get an annual income of Rs.30,000/- per acre and that market value of the lands as on the date of 4(1) notification was at Rs.2,00,000/-. R.W.2 also deposed on the similar lines and nothing was elicited in his cross examination to discredit his evidence. In the present case the lands belonging to the marginal farmers were compulsorily acquired, depriving the livelihood of the claimants. It is no doubt true that when a large extent of land is acquired, small piece of land cannot be the sole criterion but nonetheless that land cannot be discarded totally so as to dislodge the claim of the claimants when they seek adequate compensation. It is in the evidence of R.W.1 that acquired lands are very nearer to the village and R.W.1 purchased an extent of Ac.1.24 cents in the same village for Rs.1,83,500/- under Ex.B.1. Though Ex.B.1 was discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for consideration, from the evidence on record it is clear that the claimants were raising all sorts of crops and used to get Rs.30,000/- per annum per acre. The reference Court with regard to the contention that except Ex.B.1, no other document is available for enhancing the compensation, has dealt with the aspect at paras 14 and 15 of its judgment and considering the evidence that was made available by the parties, the reference Court has fixed the market value of the land as referred supra. The reference Court took into consideration the location, fertility, potential value of the lands which are double crop wet lands, being irrigated with the water of Thimmaraju tank and also the observation of the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.A.1 that at the time of his visit, the paddy crop was being grown in the acquired land with the coolies and rightly enhanced the market value of the lands, besides granting statutory benefits as per law. The reference Court however, negatived the plea of the claimants for compensation in respect of damages to the severance of their land and rightly granted the just compensation. The reference Court, in our view, on proper evaluation of the evidence of record, has granted the just compensation and therefore no interference is warranted in these appeals. In the results, the appeals are meritless and are dismissed. No costs. GM, J GBP, J Kk/28-4-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BHAVANI PRASAD LAAS Nos.103 of 2008 and batch 28-4-2010