IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEEN (13TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.3004 of 1999 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Manopad …Appellant And: Sharabu Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.3004 of 1999 JUDGMENT: [per AGR, J] This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), is filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Manopad, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1995 passed in OP No.65 of 1989 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, enhancing the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre. 2. An extent of Ac.5.76 cents of land, along with other lands situated in Chennipad village, Alampur taluq, Mahabubnagar district, were acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 13.03.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure and after gathering sale statistics (sale deeds), 14 in number, fixed the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre by his award No.4/85 dated 31.03.1985. The claimants having not satisfied with the meager compensation, sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On being reference to the civil Court, it was numbered as OP No.65 of 1989, in which the claimants filed claim statements on receipt of the notices, claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 3. To prove the market value of the acquired land, the 3rd claimant was examined as PW.1 and one more witness was examined as PW.2 and marked the certified copy of the judgment in OP No.285 of 1986 as Ex.A.1. On behalf of the referring Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer was examined as RW.1 and marked the award dated 31.03.1985 as Ex.B.1. 4. PW.1 deposed that their lands under acquisition were classified as dry lands of black cotton soil situated in Chennipad village and the same were acquired for providing house sites, wherein they used to raise two crops per annum, like sunflower, groundnuts, cotton, tobacco and deriving income of about Rs.10,000/- per acre, after deducting cultivation expenses. He further deposed that Chennipad village is a gram panchayat, having electricity, Upper Primary School, telephone facility and post office. According to him, there is no village by name Poosalapad but the lands were registered in the name of Poosalapad village and it has got contiguous with their village and the lands in Poosalapad, which are attached to their village, have been acquired for formation of RDS canal. When the matter was referred to the civil Court in OP No.285 of 1986 and batch, the civil Court fixed the market value of the acquired lands therein for RDS canal at Rs.35,000/- per acre. PW.2 one of the claimant under Ex.A.1 deposed that the acquired lands are at a distance of 1/4th kilometer to the lands covered under Ex.A.1, and the acquired lands are more valuable than the lands acquired under Ex.A.1. 5. The lower Court after considering the market value fixed by the reference Court in OP No.285 of 1986 and batch, at Rs.35,000/- per acre, fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre on the ground that the lands covered by Ex.A.1 are perennial lands with enormous water available for crops. Learned Government Pleader brought to the notice that this Court in AS Nos.1021, 1023 and 1026 of 1994, confirmed the fixation of the market value at Rs.35,000/- per acre basing upon OP No.285 of 1986 and batch dated 27.04.1994. Further in As Nos.1018, 1019,1020, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1027 to 1030 of 1994 and batch dated 27.07.1998, this Court fixed the market value of the lands at Rs.33,000/- per acre following the judgment in AS No.1021 of 1994, wherein the notification was issued on 21.3.1985. 6. In view of the same, fixation of the market value for the acquired lands at Rs.32,000/- per acre by the reference Court, do not call for any interference. We accordingly, confirm the fixation of the market value in all respects. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 13.04.2010 BSS