IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH [29TH] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2355 of 2000 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, (Mandal Revenue Officer), Kamareddy. … Appellant And: Debba Mallaiah and others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2355 of 2000 JUDGMENT:[Per GVS, J] This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamareddy,is directed against the order dated 17-12-1999 in OP No.332 of 1993, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, wherein the reference Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,400/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.19,360/- per acre. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record. 3. An extent of Ac.3-30 cents of land belonging to the respondents/claimants situate in Sy.Nos.112/2 of Lingampally village of Kamareddy Mandal was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to weaker sections of the society. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 11-03-1992 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on the same date. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 26-03-1993 fixing the market value at Rs.10,400/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the claimants sought reference to the civil Court and accordingly reference was made under Section 18(1) of the Act. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 4. Before the reference Court, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Ex.B-1 certified copy of the judgment in O.P.No.208 of 1985 was marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer, but Ex.A-1 copy of the Award was marked. 5 . P.W.1 testified that the land is situate by the side of Z.P.Road abutting the village and was having huge potentiality for development as house sites. In fact, the land is acquired only for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the community owing to its close proximity to the village. The claimants relied on Ex.B-1 certified copy of the judgment in O.P.No.208 of 1985 wherein compensation was fixed for the lands in the vicinity at Rs.5/- per square yard. It is in the evidence that even in 1984 in respect of lands situate in Rajampet village, which were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites, the Court fixed compensation at Rs.5/- per square yard. It is also not disputed that the said land is in close proximity to the lands under acquisition and the acquired lands are also situate in close proximity to the village abadi and adjacent to the main road. The reference Court has, therefore, rightly observed that the Land Acquisition Officer had erred in not taking the market rate fixed under Ex.B-1 into consideration while fixing the market value for the said lands under acquisition. It is not in dispute that no appeal was preferred against the order in O.P.No.208 of 1985 and the market value fixed thereunder has since become final. As the lands covered in O.P.No.208 of 1985 are situate nearer to the acquired l and the reference Court is perfectly justified in taking the market value under Ex.B-1 as a reasonable basis for arriving at a proper market value for the lands under acquisition. In view of the time lag between the date of order Ex.B-1 and the date of notification of the lands under acquisition, the reference court had rightly fixed the market value at Rs.6/- per square yard and after deducting 1/3rd thereof towards developmental charges, properly assessed the true value of the subject lands under acquisition, at Rs.4/- per square yard. 6. In the circumstances, it is considered that the above market value fixed by the reference Court reflects the true value of the land and the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable. We do not see any reasons for interference with the same. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th April, 2010. Bss/lrkm