IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.1880 of 1999 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer (Tahsildar, Banswada, Nizamabad. … Petitioner And P.Hanmanth Reddy and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.1880 of 1999 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) by the Land Acquisition Officer (Tahsildar), questioning the enhancement of the compensation is directed against the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Bodhan, dated 10.12.1996 in O.P.No.69 of 1987. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 28.09.1984 for acquiring Ac.2-28 guntas of land belonged to the respondents/claimants in S.No.338 situated in Rampur Kalan village of Banswada Tahsil for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the people of that village. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the due formalities passed an award on 30.01.1985 awarding compensation at Rs.6,400/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, the claimants filed a protest application under Ex.A1 seeking reference of the matter to the civil Court for due fixation of the market value for the acquired land. On such reference being made, claimants filed claim statement claiming compensation at Rs.10/- per sq.yd., or Rs.50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. To prove the inadequacy of the compensation, 3rd claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. Except marking Ex.B1-Award, no oral evidence has been let in on behalf of the referring officer. According to P.W.1, the village where the land was acquired was having all the civic amenities like water facility, electricity, drainage, roads and with a primary school. The land is having potentiality to be converted into house sites where there is a demand for the same. They used to raise paddy and sugar cane crops in the said lands and were getting income of Rs.3,000/- per acre after deducting all the expenditure. The said evidence has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in spite of placing necessary material before him. The reference Court after taking into consideration, Ex.A11 judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge in O.P.No.64 of 1982, where the lands of Chillargi village of Banswada taluq were acquired through notification dated 15.12.1980, wherein the reference court therein fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4/- per sq.yd., as against the claim of the claimants at Rs.10/- to Rs.12/- per sq.yd. The said judgment has become final and the Government accepted the same and paid the compensation to the claimants therein and the same has not been contradicted on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, it was elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 that the lands covered by Ex.A11 are having potentiality to be converted into house sites and are nearer to the Chillargi village of Banswada taluq, which will fetch more value for the lands acquired. The evidence adduced by the claimants also goes to show that the acquired land is abutting the road and is having all the civic amenities and is nearer to the lands acquired in Chillargi village of same taluk, which is a small village and where the civic amenities were available. Taking it as a basis, the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5/- per sq.yd after deducting 1/5th of the total area acquired towards developmental charges which works out to Rs.19,360/- per acre i.e., 3 times more than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since the Land Acquisition Officer has not filed the sale deeds on which he relied for payment of the compensation and there is no cross-examination of P.W.1 that the lands covered under Ex.A11 are not similar to the lands which are acquired, the reference Court after taking into consideration Ex.A11 as a comparable sale rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land by giving Rs.1/- escalation for the time gap of 3 years between the notification covered by Ex.A11 and the present notification. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the reference Court in awarding compensation, needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23.03.2010 lmv