HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No.1446 of 2001 Dt.20.10.2009 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No.1446 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Y.R.P. Unit-III, Peddapuram is the appellant, who has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.40 of 1996 dated 27.10.2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.88-65 cents in various survey numbers situated in the village of Yeleswaram was acquired for construction of spill way regulator in gap No.3 of Yeleru Reservoir at Yeleswaram vide notification published in the Gazettee dated 06.11.1981 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, awarded Rs.8,000/- per acre for the acquired land besides solatium and additional market value. Being dissatisfied with the Award, respondents/claimants sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred and taken on file by the learned Senior Civil Judge in O.P.No.40 of 1996. The learned Senior Civil Judge upon appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Hence, this appeal. 3. In order to establish their claim, the respondents/claimants examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and on behalf of referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.C.1, which is the protest application filed by the first claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram upon appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre taking into consideration the evidence of PW.3, who was a claimant in O.P.No.291 of 1986 covered under Ex.A.3, wherein the Civil Court awarded compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre and the Government preferred an appeal No.1448 of 1989 before this Court against the said decree and judgment in Ex.A.3 and this Court dismissed that appeal filed by the Government, thus confirming the orders of the Civil Court, by it’s judgment dated 14.3.1990. The judgment of this Court in A.S.No.1448 of 1989 was got marked as Ex.A.4. 5. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 6. The learned Government Pleader contended that the judgment and decree of the reference Court is unjust and the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. He also contended that the reference Court erred in relying on Ex.A.3 copy of the judgment in O.P.No.291 of 1986 and Ex.A.4 copy of the judgment in A.S.No.1448 of 1989. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that after considering the nature of the land and market value at the time of notification, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate and the reference Court rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. As seen from the record, the land was acquired by the Government for construction of spill way regulator in gap No.3, Yeleswaram, and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.8,000/- per acre, and on reference, the reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/- basing on the evidence of PW.3, who was a claimant in O.P.No.291 of 1986 covered under Ex.A.3, wherein the Civil Court awarded compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. There, the Government also preferred an appeal there against in A.S.No.1448 of 1989 before this Court and this Court dismissed the same on merits confirming the order passed by the Civil Court in O.P.No.291 of 1986. Therefore, the determination of the market value fixed by the reference Court is based on proper assessment. When once this Court has upheld the said fixation of market value, in the absence of any other material on record, we see no justification to interfere with the judgment of the Civil Court this time around. 9. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation fixed by the reference Court. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 20th October, 2009. PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE_NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No.1446 of 2001 Dt.20-10-2009