IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.825 of 1999 Between: Land Acquisition Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer, Bichkunda ..... APPELLANT AND Pedda Hanumanthu and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.825 of 1999 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The Land Acquisition Officer filed this appeal against the order in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990 dated 30.07.1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bodhan. The respondents are the claimants. 2. The lands of the respondents/claimants of an extent of Ac.1.40 cents equivalent to Ac.1.16 gts in Sy.No.274 of Gopanpally village, Bichkunda Mandal, Nizamabad District were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections pursuant to the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 10.05.1983. Award No.A/1087 dated 28.04.1989 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer based on the sale transactions available prior to Sec.4(1) notification fixing the market value @Rs.6,400/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed protest applications requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for fixing fair market value and accordingly the matter was referred to the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.6/1990. 3. The Reference Court in the said O.P. based on the oral evidence of the claimant No.2 who was examined as PW 1 and the evidence of PW 2 who was the claimant in O.P.10/1991 in which the Reference Court said to have fixed the market value @Rs.24,000/- per acre, enhanced the market value from Rs.6,400/- to Rs.22,200/- per acre. But it is not known under which notification the lands of PW 2 were acquired. PW 1 placed reliance on the market value awarded by the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.10/1991 which was said to have been confirmed by this Court in AS Nos.1725 & 1726/1993 dated 13.08.1996 (Ex.A3). 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer was examined on behalf of Referring Officer who stated that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @Rs.6,400/- per acre for the acquired land under Ex.B1 award based on the relevant sale transaction prior to Sec.4(1) notification and passed award. 5. Heard both the counsel and perused the material available on record. 6. A Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the claimants said to have been filed W.P.4563/1983 against the draft notification and this Court vide orders dated 24.06.1986 set aside the earlier draft notification dated 10.05.1983 and directed to proceed afresh and accordingly, fresh notification was issued. Thus, the Reference Court took the date of Sec.4(1) notification as 22.04.1988 and placed reliance on Ex.A2 orders in O.P. which are confirmed under Ex.A3 appeal suits. 7. We have called for copy of the orders in W.P.4563/1983. The order in W.P.4563/1983 does not belong to questioning of Sec.4(1) notification by the claimants, but the said writ petition relates to a notice issued under Sec.402(1) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation dated 02.06.1983. A perusal of award discloses that the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award based on Sec.4(1) notification issued on 10.05.1983. We do not see any material whatsoever with regard to issuance of any fresh Sec.4(1) notification, and the first Sec.4(1) notification was never set aside in any of the proceedings, and therefore, the lands acquired pursuant to Sec.4(1) notification dated 10.05.1983 cannot be compared with the lands acquired pursuant to the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act dated 09.01.1989 which are the subject matter of Exs.A2 and A3. The Sec.4(1) notification which is the subject matter of Exs.A2 and A3 is dated 09.01.1989 where the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award fixing the compensation ranging from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,800/- which was enhanced by the Reference Court @Rs.24,000/- per acre, and therefore, Exs.A2 and A3 have no relevance as there was a gap of six years in respect of the acquired lands under Exs.A2 and A3 from that of the acquired lands in question. As the Reference Court erroneously relied on an unrelated writ petition of this Court and Exs.A2 and A3, we are inclined to set aside the order under appeal. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remit the matter back to the Court below for fresh consideration and disposal, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 07.10.2010 Dsr