HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No.652 OF 1999 DATED:13-10-2009 BETWEEN: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry …Appellant AND Mohammed Ali Baig (died per L.Rs.) and others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No.652 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole in O.P.No.24 of 1994, dated 01.04.1998 whereby the reference made under Section 18 of the Act was answered in favour of the respondents-claimants enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.85,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.5.46 cents of land situated in various survey numbers of Mamidikuduru Village and Nagaram Village belonging to the claimants-respondents was acquired by Government by publishing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 16.5.1992 for the purpose of producing oil/gas well known as Tatipaka-II drill site by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Krishna Godavari Project. The Land Acquisition Officer after gathering 19 sale transactions that took place during the three years preceding to the notification, by his award No.15 of 1993, dated 20.2.1993 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.75,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimants sought for reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of market value. On reference being made, the claimant No.1 appeared before the reference Court and filed a claim statement claiming the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, and whereas the claimants 2 to 8 and 10 to 20 filed separate claim statements in similar lines with that of 1st claimant. Claimants 21 to 23 and 24 came on record as legal representatives of deceased claimants 1 and 9 respectively. In order to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of draft notification, the claimant Nos.2 and 13 apart from examining themselves as P.Ws.1 and 5 got examined four more witnesses as P.Ws.2,3,4 and 6, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of referring officer, the Senior Assistant in the office of Special Deputy Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1- copy of award and B.2-copy of combined sketch were marked. The reference Court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the claimants have proved their claim with regard to the quantum of compensation, and the fact remains that the land in question which was acquired for drilling purpose is located nearer to the road. It was observed that even as per the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer, the market rate prevalent in the area where the land in question was located was at Rs.800/- to Rs.1,000/- per sq.yd. relating to house-sites during the relevant period and accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.85,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that when the respondents-claimants failed to show the higher market value prevalent as on the date of draft notification, the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the market value from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.85,000/- per acre. It is contended that inasmuch as the acquired land is agricultural land, in the absence of any evidence to show that it is useful for house-sites, fixing the market value at Rs.85,000/- per acre is erroneous and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri N.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contended that the evidence adduced by the claimants clearly goes to show that they used to raise three crops in a year and the cost of the agricultural land during the acquisition period was about Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, and whereas, the cost of the house-sites which is part of the acquired land was ranging from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per sq.yd. P.W.6, who is an independent witness supported the claim of the claimants and therefore, the learned counsel sought to sustain the impugned order. Through the husband of claimant No.12, who was examined as P.W.2, Ex.A.7-the certificate purported to have been issued by the Village Administrative Officer was marked, which shows that various extents of land of Mamidikuduru Village is covered by coconut garden. But, Ex.A.7 certificate was issued on 18.2.1998 i.e. long after passing the award in question and the claimants did not choose to examine the said Village Administrative Officer, who issued Ex.A.7 to prove the existence of coconut garden in the acquired land. The reference Court after taking into consideration the evidence of R.W.1 who admitted that under the sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer relating to plot No.4/90 the house-site was sold at Rs.263-88 ps. per sq.yd, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.85,000/- per acre. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the reference Court in enhancing the market value considering the existence of coconut trees in part of the acquired land, does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. OCTOBER 13, 2009 Tsr.