HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1427 OF 2000 Dated: 16-04-2010 Between: Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Marpally. Appellant AND Ekkelly Antha Goud died per L.Rs. & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1427 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) questioning the enhancement of compensation, is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the order and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, R.R.District, dated 28.02.1998 made in O.P.No.1 of 1994. An extent of Ac.2.16 guntas of land belonged to the claimants-respondents herein was acquired by Government through draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 1.9.1987 for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society. Possession of the land was taken on 6.7.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting due enquiry and after obtaining necessary sale statistics, passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,000/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.20,000/- per acre. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On receipt of notice, the claimants appeared and filed claim statement before the reference Court claiming the compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.yd. contending that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification was more than Rs.20,000/- per acre and also claimed compensation for the trees that were existing as on the date of acquisition. In order to prove the market value, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Ex.A.1 sale deed. On behalf of referring officer, M.R.O. was examined as R.W.1 and the award proceedings was marked as Ex.B.1. P.W.1, the claimant No.3 testified that the acquired land is situated adjacent to the village and the adjacent land was sold at Rs.25/- per sq.yd., that the land contains black cotton soil and it is fertile and they used to raise Turmeric and sugarcane crops. P.W.2 an independent witness corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 as to the nature of soil and the crops being raised by the claimants. He further deposed that under Ex.A.1 sale deed, he purchased a piece of land in Sy.No.133/1 near the acquired land to an extent of Ac.2.17 gts. for a value of Rs.46,000/-, but he had shown it at Rs.22,000/- to save registration fee. During the cross-examination, he admitted that there are two fields in between his land and the acquired land. Whereas, R.W.1 admitted that the acquired land is suitable for house sites and hence it was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society. He further admitted that he visited the acquired land five days prior to giving evidence and found 11 tamarind trees existing in the acquired land out of which, four are fully grown up and the rest of the trees are small, for which no compensation was awarded. Though Ex.A.1 sale deed is a post-dated one which is five years after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimants established that they used to raise commercial crops by drawing water from the agricultural well and the fact that there are 11 tamarind trees itself shows that the land is bhagayath land (horticulture land). Therefore, on a conservative estimation, we take Rs.2,000/- towards income per acre per annum from the crop that were being raised by the claimants and if the same is multiplied with 10 on capitalized method, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.20,000/- per acre. That apart, the evidence adduced by R.W.1 itself discloses that the commercial crops were being raised in the acquired land and that the land is fit for construction of houses and it is nearer to the village. Considering the same, the market value can easily be fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Having regard to the same, the fixation of the market value by the reference Court at Rs.15,000/- per acre is a reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ APRIL 16, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr.