THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO A.S.No.720 of 2002 Date of Judgment: 09-06-2010 Between: The Special Deputy Collector (SRSP) Land Acquisition Unit, Warangal. ..Appellant and 1. Mukulothu Pulsingh and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO A.S.No.720 of 2002 Oral Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) by the Special Deputy Collector (SRSP), Land Acquisition Unit, Warangal is directed against the order of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal dated 19-03-2001 passed in O.P.No.18 of 1999 enhancing the compensation of the acquired land in the reference made under Section 18 of the Act to Rs.50,000/- per acre as against Rs.22,500/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). An extent of Ac.15.18½ gts. of land situated at Mylaram Village, Ghanpur (Mulug) Mandal was acquired for excavation of 34 R of DBM 38 situated at Mylaram village from K.M.10.900 to 13.000 through draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in the A.P. Gazette on 20-11-1997. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) after conducting due enquiry passed an award dated 31-03-1998, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.22,500/- per acre. The claimants on receipt of compensation under protest, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court, seeking enhancement. On reference being made to the civil court, the claimants filed their claim statements seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. To substantiate the adequacy of the compensation fixed by the LAO, claimant No.6 was examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.X1 to X3 were got marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, LAO was examined as R.W.1, but no document as such was marked. The 6th claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, stated that the acquired lands are black cotton soil where they used to raise commercial crops and the lands are provided with irrigation facilities, which has not been disputed by the LAO nor any suggestion was made to discredit his testimony about the nature of the soil, fertility or crops raised by them. P.W.2 stated that the lands in Sultanpur village were also acquired and Sultanpur village is situated adjacent to Mylaram village. The civil court fixed the market value of the acquired land in O.P.No.63 of 1997 at Rs.26,000/- per acre. Under Ex.X3—sale deed dated 02-05-1994, Ac.1.02 gts. of land was purchased by P.W.3 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Further, the evidence adduced by the claimants discloses that the lands in Sultanpur village are acquired in the year 1994, whereas the present acquisition is in the year 1997 i.e. three years after the said acquisition. P.W.1 categorically deposed that the lands in Mylaram village are situated adjacent to the lands of Sultanpur village and the acquired lands are at a distance of 2 kMs. from the main canal at Sultanpur village. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that lands covered by X1 and X2 are situated 10 KMs. away from the acquired land. P.W.2 categorically stated that the border of Regonda Mandal and the border of Ghanpur Mandal are touching each other and nothing contra evidence was elicited to discredit the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 also shows that he got lands in the outskirts of Ramannagudem village and the lands of Ramannagudem village are adjacent to Mylaram village; he purchased the land in an extent of Ac.1.02 gts. from one Md.Raja Mohammed in the year 1994 for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- per acre; Ex.X3 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 02-05-1994 and the soil fertility is also same. The lands covered under sale deed, Ex.X3 and the acquired lands are one and the same. The evidence of the claimants shows that the market value as on the date of acquisition is more than Rs.50,000/- per acre. Considering the same, the lower court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre which, in our opinion, is quite reasonable. The learned Government Pleader has not seriously disputed about the fixation of the market value by the reference court. We do not see any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____________ RAJA ELANGO,J. 09-06-2010 Murthy