THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2685 OF 2000 Dated. 01-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and RDO, Miryalaguda …Appellant Vs. Shaik Khader and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2685 OF 2000 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed by the State against the award by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda in O.P.No.28 of 1992 dated 18-08-2000 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short “the Act”) An extent of Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.58 of Nidamanoor village belonging to the claimant was acquired for the purpose of providing pump house and drinking water supply scheme to Nalgonda town in 1988. Advance possession was taken on 12-05-1988 and a draft notification was given on 22-02-1989 and award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.20/- per square yard. The claimants were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed that the land is situated in a developed area and earlier the Government has acquired the land for Market Yard at Nidamanoor which is close to the present acquired land. The land has potentiality and therefore pleaded for fixing of the market value at Rs.200/- per square yard. After the matter was referred to the court, the claimants appeared and reiterated their contentions. On behalf of the petitioners, Pws.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the respondents RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1 award dated 31-01-1991. After considering the evidence, the learned Senior Civil Judge fixed the market value at Rs.50/- per square yard and granted the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (a) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is real and sustainable? (b) Whether the order of the reference court suffers from any infirmity? (c) To what relief? POINTS:- The substance of the contention of the claimants before the lower court is that the land is potential one and close to the Nalgonda town and in an earlier notification for the purpose of Market Yard and construction of a bus station, higher value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and also by the courts and therefore, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low. It is further pleaded that the advance possession was taken and it is for the benefit of providing water to the town of Nalgonda and the land has potentiality. The claimants have adduced evidence of PWS.3 to 6 and also relied upon several sale transactions prior to the date of acquisition. The learned Senior Civil Judge taking into consideration of the judgment of this court in a batch of Appeals being AS No.1253 of 1991 and 706 of 1992 considered the market value of the land acquired in the same village in Sy.Nos.19 and 20 to an extent of Ac.1.90 cents for location of the Bus station. A draft notification was given in that case on 03-02-1987 and the award was passed on 29-03-1989 fixing the market value. After consideration the court below in that case fixed the market value @ Rs.30/- per square yard and in the appeal this court by a common judgment has fixed the market value at Rs.50/- per square yard. It is not in dispute that the award in that case pertains to a notification in or about the same time by the date of this notification under appeal. The properties are situated at Nidamanoor, by and large the potentialities of the village are similar either in this case or in the earlier case. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the judgment in the above appeals which is marked as Ex.A-1 had become final. As can be seen from the judgment of this court taking several potentialities and the location of the properties, the market value was fixed. Therefore, it is quite clear that the lower court has not committed any error in relying upon the judgment of this court and it is the best evidence in all aspects considered. Therefore, the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 01-12-2010 TSNR