THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO A.S.No.1576 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation made by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, (for brevity ‘the reference Court’), by the Order dated 29-06-1996 in O.P.No.322 of 1987. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that an extent of Ac.10.44 cents of land owned by the claimant and five others was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the weaker sections by issuing Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 08-01-1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, by Award No.43 of 1986, dated 29-03-1987, while fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard i.e. Rs.1,39,200/- per acre, deducted 1/3rd towards providing roads, park, electricity etc., which comes to Rs.46,400/- and from the balance amount of Rs.92,800/-, further deducted an amount of Rs.43,800/- towards estimated cost for levelling the site to make it fit for construction of houses and conversion charges and layout charges and finally awarded an amount of Rs.49,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants issued notice under Section 18 (2) of the Act requesting the land acquisition officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court and thereupon the land acquisition officer made this reference in O.P.No.322 of 1987 under Section 18(2) of the Act and on receiving notice in the above O.P., the claimants filed their claim statement claiming compensation at Rs.50/- per square yard and Rs.100/- per tree and also further compensation for sale. The reference Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the petition enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. from Rs.49,000/- per acre to Rs.92,800/- per acre directing the Government to pay the difference amount of Rs.43,800/- per acre for Ac.10.44 cents from which estimated costs for levelling the site, conversion charges and layout charges were deducted. Challenging the said judgment, the Land Acquisition Officer filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for appeals and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. To prove the market value, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 and got marked Ex.X-1, sale deed. P.W.2 is the vendee under Ex.X-1, sale deed. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. As seen from Ex.X-1, sale deed, it is clear that P.W.2 purchased 146 square yards for Rs.7,300/- which works out to Rs.50/- per square yard on 21- 01-1987, whereas the acquisition of land made by the Land Acquisiton Officer took place on 08-01-1987 as per the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e. within 13 days after issuance of the notification, P.W.2 purchased the said land. The evidence of P.W.2 also shows that the lands purchased by him under Ex.X-1 are situated in Godudanayyapeta village, whereas the acquired lands are situated at Turangi village. The reference Court, therefore, has not discarded the sale deed. But, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square only and out of which, he deducted 1/3rd towards providing roads, park, electricity etc., and further deducted an amount of RS.43,800/- towards developmental charges for providing all amenities. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the further deduction of Rs.43,800/- towards estimated cost for levelling the site and making it fit for construction, conversion and layout charges of the land etc. When the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at market value of Rs.30/- per square yard based upon the sale deed gathered by the claimant by deducting 1/3rd towards development charges, the further deduction of Rs.49,800/- for levelling the roads etc., is not at all warranted. The reference Court has rightly answered the award. 5. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court disallowing the further deducting of Rs.43,800/- towards cost of levelling etc., cannot be called for any interference by this Court. I do not see any ground to allow the appeal The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY ________________________ Dated:11-08-2011 JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO kvr