HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY L.A.A.S.No.306 OF 2005 JUDGMENT (Per GVS,J): This appeal is directed against the order dated 31- 07-2001 in O.P.No.28 of 2000, on the file of the I- Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was answered by enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.40,000/- per acre, besides awarding other statutory benefits. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record. 3. An extent of Ac.3-01 gts of land situate at Mylaram of Ghanapur Mandal was acquired for excavation of canal 34 R pursuant to a draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 25-09-1995 and draft declaration published on 26-09-1995. After conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 26- 03-1999 granting compensation of Rs.22,500/- per acre. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants sought reference to Civil Court. 4. Before the reference Court, the claimants sought enhancement to Rs.70,000/- per acre on the ground that the land is highly potential and very fertile for raising commercial crops. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1, the Special Deputy Collector was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 award and award proceedings were marked. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre on the ground that as per the award proceedings, the land is fertile and fit for raising commercial crops, including turmeric. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that the enhancement ordered by the reference Court is not based on any evidence available on record but is result of guess work. 6. The claimants relied on Exs.A-1 to A-3. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of order in O.P.No.18 of 1999, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.22,500/- and the Civil Court enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, according to P.W.1. P.W.2 is one of the claimants in O.P.No.18 of 1999. Admittedly, the land covered by Ex.A-1 is distinct and separate from the acquired land. The reference Court noted that P.W.1 did not produce any sale deeds in support of his claim that the land in question would fetch Rs.70,000/- per acre and the value as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is low. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the order in O.P.No.63 of 1997 in which P.W.3 is one of the claimants and therein also the Civil Court fixed the market value at Rs.50/- per acre, but the lands covered by Ex.A-2 are situate at Sultanpur, a different village, whereas the acquired lands herein are situate in Mylaram village. Ex.A-3 is the registration extract of sale dated 02-05-1994 wherein Ac.1-02 gts of land situate at Ramannagudem was sold at Rs.52,500/-. The land covered by Ex.A-3 is situate in Ramannagudem, which is also a different village. Of course, R.W.1 stated that Mylaram, Ramannagudem and Sultanpur are adjacent villages. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration Ex.A-3 sale deed, but rejected the same on the ground that a small extent of Ac.01-02 gts was sold out of Ac.14-25 gts and that too on the eve of proposed acquisition. The reference Court, in fact, rejected Ex.A-3 sale transaction on the ground that there is no evidence regarding the nature of land covered under Ex.A-3 and its location and, therefore, the value mentioned therein cannot be adopted as a basis for fixing the market value for the acquired land. The reference Court rejected the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer during the enquiry brushed aside the representation of the villagers that the existing land value is Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry and Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for the appellant, the reference Court indulged in guess work and made some assumptions while ordering enhancement. As can be seen from the impugned order, the claimants sought enhancement on the basis of the market value fixed under Exs.A-1 and A-2 i.e., at Rs.50,000/- per acre, but the reference Court rejected the same on the ground that there was no material placed on record to show that the said value was confirmed in the appeal. It was specifically held by the reference Court that the compensation fixed in the orders Exs.A-1 and A-2 cannot be taken as a basis to fix the market value of the land under acquisition. It was also observed in the impugned order that it is the duty of the petitioners to place cogent and convincing material before the Court in support of their contention that they are entitled for enhancement to the extent of Rs.50,000/- per acre and they are not supposed to rely totally on the orders passed by the Civil Court. Thus, having observed that the claimants have not placed any material in support of their claim for enhancement other than Exs.A-1 and A-2 and having rejected the claim for enhancement based on the compensation awarded under Exs.A-1 and A-2, it is not known on what basis the reference Court has ordered enhancement to Rs.40,000/- per acre. The only observation made by the reference Court is that as per Ex.B-2 the land is fertile and fit for raising commercial crops. The reference Court, therefore, assumed that even in small village like Mylaram there would be increase in the land value at not less than 20% per year. There is absolutely no material placed on record to show that there has been such an increase in the land value in the vicinity of the acquired lands. Having rejected the documents Exs.A-1 to A-3 filed by the claimants as being of no use and there being no other evidence, fixing of market value by the reference Court at Rs.40,000/- per acre is without any basis. The impugned order enhancing the market value from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre is, therefore, unsustainable, as the said enhancement is not based on any evidence and is not supported by any valid or justifiable reasons. 7. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th December, 2010 Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY L.A.A.S.No.306 OF 2005 Between: The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.O), SRSP, Warangal. … Appellants And Gade Ramchandraiah and 8 others … Respondents