IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO. 618 OF 1992 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition),Parvatipuram ..... PETITIONER AND G. Suryanarayana and ten others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Parvathipuram has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P No. 86 of 1987 dated 29.3.1990 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Appellate Tribunal, Parvatipuram. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of 2.87 hectors of land situated in Seebillipedavalsa Village in Makkuva Mandal in Vizianagaram District was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Parvatipuram, for excavation of Branch canals under Vottigedda Reservoir Project as per the Award No. 14/86 dated 6.8.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre for wet lands at Rs. 4,000/- per acre for Manavari lands and at Rs. 3,000/- per acre for dry lands. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants claiming higher compensation i.e., Rs. 20,000/- per acre for wet lands, Rs. 15,000/- per are for Manavari lands and Rs. 10,000/- per acre for dry lands, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred and taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge in L.O.P.No. 86 of 1987. The respondents-claimants in order to establish their claim examined RWs-1 to RW-3 and got marked Exs B1 to B-5 and on behalf of the appellant PW-1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. The learned Subordinate Judge upon appreciation of both documentary and oral evidence made available on record fixed the market value of the acquired land i.e., for ‘wet’ lands at Rs.7,500/- per acre and Rs. 6,000/- per acre for ‘Manavari’ lands and Rs.4,500 per acre for dry lands. He also held that the claimants are entitled for solatium at 30% per annum on the enhanced market value of the lands and claimants are also entitled for 12% additional market value from the date of the notification i.e., 9.8.1984 till the date of award i.e., 6.8.1986 on the enhanced market value. He also held that the claimants are also entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of award till one year, and thereafter 15% per annum on the enhanced value. Hence the present appeal. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. The Reference Court relying upon the sale transactions covered under Ex. B1, copy of sale deed executed by Talanakula Tirupathirao and others in favour of Pudi Pydamma and others for Rs. 9,000/- and Ex.B3, a copy of sale deed executed by Kota Suryanarayana and others in favour of Ganji Krishna Murthy for Rs. 11,000/- in respect of wet lands, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 6,000/- per acre to 7,500/- per acre. In respect of dry lands the Reference Court relied upon Ex.B4, a copy of sale deed executed by Kota Suryanarayana and others in favour of Bogi Dharma Rao for Rs. 4,000/- and Ex. B5, a copy of sale deed executed by Chukka Suryanarayana in favour of Teella Kasinaidu for Rs. 3,000/- per acre, enhanced the market value from Rs. 3,000/- per acre to Rs. 4,500/- per acre, whereas in respect of Manavari lands the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per acre, considering the fact that they are rain fed cultivable lands in which paddy copy is raised. Therefore, the determination of the market value fixed by the reference court is based on sale transactions and also oral evidence. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation fixed by the reference Court. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium. HULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO,J DATE: 21.10.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies