THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.653 OF 1998 Dated. 23 -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Narayanapet …Appellant Vs. Eshwar Singh, Hindupur ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.653 of 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.20 of 1991 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar challenging the enhancement of the compensation. For the purpose of upgrading railway crossing No.705 between Chegunta Krishna, an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas within the limits of Krishna Village of Maganoor Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District was acquired and notification was given on 10- 04-1987 and an award enquiry was conducted and fixed the market value at Rs.4,800/- per acre. As the claimants were not satisfied with the above compensation, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimants filed a claim statement contending that the acquired land is in a developed area and the village is very much developed and closer to Rayachur and the market value is not less than Rs.60/- per square yard. Even in 1982 and by the date of acquisition, it will be about Rs.300/- per square yard. O.P.Nos.19 and 20 of 1991 were tried together and on behalf of the claimants PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 got marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1. The lower court after considering the material on record enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per acre and aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) Whether the order of the lower court requires any interference? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- Sofar as the claim in O.P.No.19 of 1991 is concerned, the extent of land owned by the claimant is Ac.1.12 guntas and the claimant in O.P.No.20 of 1991 is said to be the owner of Ac.0.15 guntas. PW.1 is the second claimant in O.P.No.19 of 1991 and he spoke about the potentialities. According to him, he and his brother purchased the land from the claimant in O.P.No.20 of 1991. He also filed Exs.A-1 to A-4, which were said to be sale transactions under which the claimant in O.P.No.20 of 1991 who was examined as PW.2 sold the properties for different considerations of small extents of land. PW.3 claims to have purchased the land to an extent of 25 square yards under Ex.A-3 @ Rs.1500/- for the purpose of construction of a house. The lower court has not given credence to the sale transactions executed by PW.2 as they are subsequent to the taking of possession and having knowledge of the acquisition. The lower court also found that the land is an agricultural land. The lower court found that there is no proof of agricultural income. The lower court however took into consideration that the land is close to a power station at Shanti Nagar and there are some houses constructed and keeping in view the potentialities, enhanced the compensation at Rs.15,000/- per acre. From the material available on record, the fact that the compensation is only small extent of land and taking into consideration the nature of acquisition, the learned reference court has enhanced the compensation and it is not an exorbitant or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not find no reason to interfere with the order of the reference court. Accordingly the points are answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 23-12-2010 TSNR