IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH 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. 1372 OF 1990 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Somasila Project Unit-I, Badvel Appellants AND Chamanthi Venkata Subbaraju and another Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) Though this appeal stands dismissed for non- compliance of the order dated 5.11.1992 passed in CMP No. 8579 of 1990 in AS No.1372 of 1990, yet we feel it appropriate to consider the merits and dispose of the same. This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) questioning the order and decree dated 13.2.1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, in O.P.No. 280 of 1985. The draft notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette on 31.10.1980 for acquisition of an extent of Ac.3.12 guntas of land in Sy.No.685 situated at Poornampalli hamlet of Kothur village, Sidhout Taluk, Kadapa District, for the purpose of submergence into Somasila Project and an award came to be passed on 11.10.1983 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,000/- per acre and Rs.239.25 Ps. for each of the 13 margosa and one soapnut trees. On reference at the instance of the respondents – claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, in O.P. No. 280 of 1985, by order dated 13.2.1987, enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.6,000/- per acre and fixed the compensation for the margosa and soapnut tree at Rs.400/- each, apart from awarding other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved by such enhancement, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. This court while granting stay on condition of the petitioner depositing entire amount of compensation together with solatium, interest and costs within six weeks, permitted the respondents claimants to withdraw half of the same without furnishing security and the remaining half by furnishing security. It appears that the said conditional order dated 25.7.1990 of depositing the entire compensation amount within the time stipulated had not been complied with and as such on 5.11.1992, this court further granted two months time for compliance, in default it was ordered that the appeal shall stand dismissed against the respondents 1 and 2. Since the order is not complied with even though the appeal stands dismissed, we have, however, gone through the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and the other material available on record. Exs. B-1 and B-2 are the copies of the sale deeds dated 29.10.1977 and 7.11.1978 in respect of sale of small extents of land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre, two or three years prior to the acquisition in question. Though the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants reflect value of the land at Rs.15,000/- per acre, yet the Reference Court had determined the market value at Rs.6,000/- per acre only. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enhancement of the market value of the acquired land is exorbitant. The enhancement of the compensation in respect of the acquired trees also cannot be said to be disproportionate inasmuch as it is based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao November 15, 2011 MAS