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. No. 1746 of 1998 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Boath, Adilabad District. ..... Appellant AND Naitham Bhumanna And another. .....Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Adilabad, in O.P. No. 15 of 1996, the Government filed the present appeal. The appellant-Land Acquisition Officer is the respondent in O.P.No.15 of 1996. An extent of Ac.04.02 guntas in S.Nos.6, 7 and 9 in Kothapally Hamlet of Nakkalwada village was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was published on 24.03.1992 and the Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.6,500/-, per acre, against the claim of the claimants at Rs.10,000/. Aggrieved by the said Award, at the request of the claimants, reference was made to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Adilabad which was registered as O.P.No.15 of 1996. The Civil Court, after due enquiry, enhanced the compensation from Rs.6,500/- per acre to Rs.10,000/-. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Government Pleader argued that the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre awarded by the reference Court is simply basing on the oral evidence of CW.1, which is not substantiated by filing any documentary evidence and, therefore, the enhancement is disproportionate and therefore erroneous. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court at Rs.10,000/- per acre and that the impugned order is sustainable? Before the court below, on behalf of the claimants, C.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.C.1 and C.2. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined and marked Ex.B.1 Award by consent. Ex.B.1 is the award passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer fixing the compensation of Rs.6,500/- per acre. Exs.A.1 and A.2 do not reflect the value of the land in question. The oral evidence of CW.1 is to the effect that the lands in question have potential value and commercial crops like cotton, wheat, paddy were being raised. He also stated that the said lands are of black soil lands, and same is opined by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award. At the time of making award enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration nine sale transactions. It is an admitted fact that the land in S.No.112 measuring Ac.2.15 guntas was sold for Rs.16,625/- per acre, land in Sy.No.119 measuring Ac.1.30 guntas was sold for Rs.10,500/- per acre, land in S.No.105 measuring Ac.2.00 was sold for Rs.13,500/- per acre and the land in S.No.17 measuring Ac.2.00 was sold for Rs.8,000/- per acre and these lands are situated at a distance of 2 furlongs from the acquired lands. In the Award Ex.B.1, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that his enquiry revealed that the dry lands were sold @ Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. Therefore, while evaluating the evidence of CW.1 and the Award Ex.B.1, it can be said beyond doubt that the acquired lands have fertility, suitable for commercial crops. Even the evidence of C.W.1 clearly shows that wheat and paddy crops were raised in the acquired lands with the help of bore wells. Even according to the Land Acquisition Officer’s enquiry that the land in village is sold at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Therefore, while taking into consideration the evidence of C.W.1 and the recitals in Ex.B.1, the Reference Court has correctly enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- per acre from Rs.6,500/- per acre. Therefore, in any view of the matter, we see no grounds to interfere with the order under appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order and decree passed by the Reference Court. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao Dt.24.11.2011 PNV