THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2517 of 2000 JUDGMENT: [per GVS, J] This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Manthani, assailing the order dated 29.02.2000 in OP No.8 of 1994, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, wherein the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,400/- per acre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.50,000/- per acre. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. Perused the record. 3. An extent of Ac.1.14 gts in Sy.No.380 situate at Suraiahpalli village of Manthani Mandal, was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short ‘the Act’] was published on 09.02.1992. After due enquiry and following the procedure prescribed, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 31.07.1993 fixing the market value for the acquired land at Rs.8,400/- per acre and awarded compensation of Rs.33,605/- for the irrigation well and Rs.1,400/- towards the value of 14 tappable toddy trees and Rs.300/- towards value of one mango tree, situate on the acquired land. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants sought reference of the matter to the Civil Court. Accordingly, reference was made under Section 18 (1) of the Act for fixing the compensation. Before the reference Court, the claimant had claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for the land and Rs.1,35,000/- for the well and Rs.800/- each to mango tree and Rs.250/- each for the toddy trees. 4. In support of his claim for enhancement, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and examined three other witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 award was marked on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre, relying on Exs.A.1 and A.2 sale transactions in respect of land and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.3,000/- for each of the mango tree and Rs.500/- each for the toddy tree. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal only in respect of the enhancement made for the land, but not for the well or trees. 6. PW.1, the claimant, testified that the land was agricultural land and they have been raising commercial crops like chilly, cotton and other crops and was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre. It is also in his evidence that there is a big well situate on the land and the land is irrigated not only by the water drawn from the said well but also with the water from Sriram Sagar Project and hence the acquired land is very fertile. The existence of the irrigation well on the acquired land is not disputed and, in fact, the said well is also subject matter of acquisition. The award makes it clear that the acquired land is fertile where two crops are being raised through out the year, including commercial crops like chilly and cotton inasmuch as the water is available in plenty from the multiple sources like the irrigation well situate in the acquired land and SRSP canal. It is also in his evidence that Suraiahpalli is a big village, having all civic amenities, including petrol bunk, schools, electricity and also rice mills. The land acquired is meant for providing house sites to weaker sections of the society and is in close proximity to the village. The very fact that it was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites is indicative of the potentiality of the land for development as house sites. PW.2 is the vendor of sale deed Ex.A.2 and he testified that an extent of Ac. 0-20 guntas of land was sold to one Jalavancha Pullamma for Rs.40,000/- per acre. The said transaction under Ex.A.2 took place on 07-08-1984, which was eight years prior to issuance of notification in respect of the subject land. Thus, from Ex.A.2 it is clear that the neighbouring land was worth Rs.40,000/- per acre even eight years prior to the date of the present notification. Ex.A.1 is another sale deed relied on by the reference Court where an extent of Ac.0-02 guntas of land was sold for Rs.6,400/-, which comes to Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. The transaction under Ex.A.1 took place on 16.05.1989, which is also about three years prior to the date of the present notification. Assuming for a moment that the transaction under Ex.A.1 may not be taken as a comparable transaction in view of the small extent of Ac.0-02 guntas covered by it, whereas the acquired land is of Ac.1.14 guntas, still going by Ex.A.2 which took place about 8 years prior to the date of notification and is, therefore, certainly reliable the market value of the land similarly situate and in close proximity to the acquired land was Rs.40,000/- even in the year 1984. The reference Court after taking Exs.A.1 and A.2 into consideration had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The reference Court was certainly justified in placing reliance, particularly on Ex.A.2 and taking the same as affording reasonable basis for estimating true market value of the subject land as on the date of the present notification and fixing the same at Rs.50,000/- per acre. In the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer, the said market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre fixed by the reference Court, does not call for any interference. 7. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in the appeal and the impugned order passed by the reference Court awarding compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre, together with statutory benefits, is confirmed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.04.2010 Bss/lrkm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH [27TH] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2517 of 2000 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer Manthani … Appellant And: Komuroju Maruthi … Respondent