THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.844 OF 1998 DT.22-11-2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer cum Mandal Revenue Officer, Doma Mandal. … Appellant And K.Naga Reddy s/o late Loka Reddy & another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: G.P for Appeals Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.844 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S.Appa Rao) The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer-cum- Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ﬁled this appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.51 of 1986 dated 2-5-1992, on the ﬁle of Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. The Land Acquisition Oﬃce-cum-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District acquired the land of an extent of Ac.4-21 gts in Sy.No.285 situated at Kistapur Village, Doma Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with an agricultural well for the purpose of providing house-sites to S.Cs, S.Ts, B.Cs and other Weaker Sections under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-07-1978. After due enquiry, he awarded the compensation of Rs.1,500/- per acre and Rs.10,000/- for the well. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and on reference, the Civil Court registered the same as O.P.No.51 of 1986 and by Judgment and Decree dated 2-5-1992 enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,500/- per acre to Rs.4,500/- per acre and from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.35,000/- for the agricultural well. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals vehemently contended that the Court below without there being any base enhanced the compensation exorbitantly and the ﬁndings of the Court below is erroneous. Now the point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,500/- per acre to Rs.4,500/- per acre and Rs.10,000/- to Rs.35,000/- for the agricultural well is just and reasonable and that the Judgment and Decree of the Court below is sustainable. Perused the order impugned. On behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the appellant herein/respondent R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B.1. Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the certiﬁed copies of the pahanis of the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively. Those documents have no relevance. Ex.A.3 is the certiﬁed copy of the sale deed dated 21-1-1976. The present notiﬁcation is of the year 1978, and the said document Ex.A.3 is two years prior to the present acquisition. Hence, Ex.A.3 can be taken as crucial document while determining the market value of the land in question. The Court below well discussed the evidence on record. Ex.A.3 document relates to sale of Ac.0-12 cents at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per acre. Therefore, the calculation made by the Court below while enhancing compensation from Rs.1,500/- per acre to Rs.4,500/- is just and reasonable. Further more, it is the evidence before the Court below that the Executive Engineer assessed the value of the well at Rs.35,000/-. The Court below took into consideration the opinion of the Executive Engineer while enhancing the compensation towards well from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. The land in question is with agricultural well, which was estimated later at Rs.35,000/- by the Executive Engineer himself. The trial Court discussed the evidence on record correctly and estimated the cost of the well and the land in question. Further, according the impugned order the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has acquired Ac.4-34 guntas leaving Ac.0-13 guntas and the said Ac.0-13 guntas have become useless. It is also evident from the evidence of PW.2 that the lands in question is having potentiality and there is agricultural well and the said land is situated at near by village and is more useful for the house-sites. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the ﬁndings of the Court below enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,500/-per acre to Rs.4,500/- per acre and from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.35,000/- for the agricultural well is just and reasonable. Therefore, we see no reason to diﬀer with the ﬁndings arrived at by the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed conﬁrming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.51 of 1986 dated 2-5-1992, on the ﬁle of Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. No costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J DATE:22-11-2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO (The Judgment of the bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S.Appa Rao) APPEAL SUIT No.844 of 1998 DT.22-11-2011