HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY DT. 21-4-2010 AS No.136/2000 The Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Atmakur. …Appellant V. 1. Kothi Venkat Reddy and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY AS No.136/2000 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Atmakur under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is filed aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation made by the Subordinate Jude (now Senior Civil Judge), Suryapet in OP No.42/1987 dt. 5-10-1990. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dt. 4-12- 1985 was issued proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.10-07 cents in S.No.916 situated in Nemmical village, belonging to the claimants for the purpose of providing house situates to the weaker sections of the society. The Land Acquisition Officer after obtaining necessary sales statistics of three years preceding to the notification fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12000/- per acre by award dt. 5-3-1987 (Ex.B-1). The claimants after receiving the compensation under protest sought for reference under Sec. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court, where the claimants claimed compensation at Rs.4500/- per gunta. The claimants, in order to prove the inadequacy of the market value fixed by the reference court, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Exs.X-1 to X-7. On behalf of the referring officer, the Head Assistant of Mandal Revenue Office was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were got marked. The first claimant examined himself as P.W.1, second claimant as P.W.9 and third claimant examined himself as P.W.8. P.W.9 sold one gunta of land at Rs.4000/- under Ex.X-1- sale deed dt. 7-11-1984 to one P.Narsaiah. Under Ex.X-2 dt.30-12-1984, P.W.3 purchased three guntas of land in S.No.916 from claimant No.2 at Rs.4000/- per gunta, which is a part in the survey number of land acquired under the present acquisition. Under Ex.X-4-agreement of sale dt.25-4-1984, claimant No.2 (P.W.9) sold the land at Rs.4000/- per gunta to P.W.4. Under Ex.A-19-registered sale deed dt. 30-10-1984, P.W.9 sold one gunta of land at Rs.4000/- to B. Narsaiah, which works out to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Ex.A-15 is certified copy of judgment dt.6-9-1983 in OP No.7/82 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda. Under Ex.A-15, the Subordinate Judge fixed the market value for the acquired land therein at Rs.19500/- per acre. The compensation fixed in OP No.7/82 has been confirmed by this court in AS No.1730/1985 dt. 7-7- 1985 under Ex.A-18-decree. The notification covered under OP No.7/82 was made on 19-3-1977 ie., 8 years prior to the issuance of present notification ie.,4-12-1985. P.W.8 was examined to prove the compensation awarded in OP No.7/82. The sale deed Ex.A-19 and Exs.X-1,X-2, X-4 and X-6 referred to above indicate that there is rise in prices of the lands around the acquired land. If after giving necessary escalation at 10% per annum for 8 years on Rs.19500/-, the market value works out at Rs.35500/- per acre, but however, the reference court fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre after giving certain deduction. Ex.B-2 is the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Revenue Divisional Officer estimating the value of the well at Rs.25000/- situated in the acquired land. Admittedly, the Government did not acquire the well though it is situated in the acquired land. By excluding the well from acquisition, it has become useless for the claimants since the Government acquired the land around the well. In view of the same, the claimants are entitled to compensation for severance and injuries affection of the land. The reference court rightly fixed the compensation for the well at Rs.25,000/- per acre. After going through the evidence, and the order of the reference court, we are convinced that the compensation amount fixed by the reference court is quite reasonable and it does not warrant any interference. The appeal suit is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ ‐ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Date:-21-4-2010 kmr .