IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO : 600 of 1997 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vicarabad Division. ..... APPELLANT AND 1. Shaik Gyasuddin. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO :600 of 1997 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act”), assailing the order, dated 10.3.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad in O.P.No.140 of 1989 whereby the reference Court answered the reference in favour of the respondent-claimant enhancing and fixing the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.100/-per sq. yard. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The land of the claimant, admeasuring 597 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.28 of Vikarabad, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Bus stand. The draft notification as required under Section 4(1) of the Act had been published in the A.P. Gazette No.59, dated 28.1.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer after completing all the required formalities under the Act and taking into consideration the sale statistics for the period from 1984 to 1987, passed award dated 16.1.1989 fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. yard. The claimant received compensation under the protest and hence, a reference was made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Before the reference Court, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and no documents were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-Award was marked. The reference Court after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal. Heard and perused the material available on record. The learned Government Pleader contended that the reference Court ought not to have relied on the order in O.P.No.133 of 1989 for enhancing the compensation as the said order itself is not sustainable in law and that the reference Court fixed the compensation in the absence of any convincing documentary evidence. The land of the claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Bus stand. According to the claimant, Government Offices, commercial complexes, schools and hospital were situated around the acquired land and at the time of acquisition, the market value of the acquired land is at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. yard. In support of his contention, he relied on Exs.A1 to A4 filed in O.P.No.133 of 1989. Ex.A1 sale deed pertains to 300 sq. yards situated at Vikarabad, purchased at the rate of Rs.18,000/- in the year 1986 and Ex.A2 is the sale deed in respect of the land of an extent of 44 sq. yards purchased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- in the year 1984 and Ex.A4 is the sale certificate issued by Grampanchayat, Vikarabad and as per the said sale certificate 13-33 sq. yards situated opposite Jai Hindu Talkies sold for Rs.84,000/- in an open auction held on 27.10.1985. The evidence of R.W.1 goes to show that the acquired land is situated in a developed area. All the above documents and the evidence on record goes to show that value of the acquired land during that period is more than the value that was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Government Pleader failed to produce any material in support his contention that the documents in O.P.No.133 of 1989 cannot be relied upon. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the reference Court is justified in fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard, which, in all probability reflect the true market value prevailing as on that date. In view of the foregoing discussion, we feel that the order under appeal do not suffer from any irregularity, warranting interference by this court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad in O.P.No.140 of 1989. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 26.10.2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO : 600 of 1997 (Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 26.10.2009