IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO L.A.A.S.NO. 739 OF 1997 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh through Land Acquisition Officer, and Special Deputy Collector, Unit-I, SingoorProject, Sangareddy ..... Appellant/Referring Officer AND Narasagonda S/o Balgonda .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Unit, L.M.D. Colony has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.94 of 1988 dated 20.11.1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the Civil Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act enhanced the Compensation from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac. 18.12 guntas, out of which an extent of 33 guntas is dry land and 10.32 guntas is wet single crop and 6.27 guntas is wet double crop lands in various survey numbers situated at Siroor village, was acquired for Sri Ram Sagar Project vide notification published in the Gazettee, dated 6.5.1982 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The possession of the land was taken on 1.12.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, awarded compensation @ Rs.5,100/- per acre. The respondents/claimants received the compensation amount under protest and asked for making the reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred to and taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No. 94 of 1988. The learned Subordinate Judge upon appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Hence, this appeal. 3. In order to establish the claim, the respondents/claimants examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and on behalf of referring Officer, none were examined and no documents were marked. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12,000/- per acre taking into consideration the award passed in Ex. A1, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of the wet land at Rs. 5,100/- per acre but after considering the sale deeds, the reference Court enhanced the market value of the wet land at Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The learned Judge also granted 30% solatium and interest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possession i.e. from 1.12.1980 and from there after at 15% till the date of realization. 5. The learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that since the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award by taking into account Ex. A1 and rightly fixed the market value. But on reference, the reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- without giving any justifiable grounds. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation was rightly determined by the trial Court or not. 7. It is to be noticed in this case that a vast extent of land was acquired for the purpose of Sri Ram Sagar Project by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at Rs. 5,100/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the lower Court taking into consideration of the material made available on record and especially taking into consideration of Ex. A1, wherein in similar circumstances, in O.P.No. 450 of 1992 the First Additional District Judge, Karimnagar enhanced the marked value of the land from Rs. 5,100/- to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. 8. In view of the above finding and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act and the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation at Rs.12,000/- per acre. We see no merits in the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 17th December 2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies