IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND 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.163 OF 1998 Between: Mandal Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Enkur, Khammam District. … Appellant And P.Satyanarayana. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.163 of 1998 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) The appellant/Land Acquisition Officer, filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) against the decree and judgment of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Kothagudem passed in O.P.No.230 of 1990, dated 28.12.1993 answering the reference in favour of the respondent/claimant. Undisputed facts in nutshell are that an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas of dry land belongs to the claimant in survey No.222/AA situated at Sriramagiri, H/o.Tutakalingannapeta village, Enukur Mandal was acquired for providing house sites to S.Cs. of Sriramagiri. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette No.37, dated 05.02.1983 and draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the District Gazette No.192, dated 01.11.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the due formalities, passed an award on 30.09.1989 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,355/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court and on reference being made, notice was sent to the claimant, who appeared and filed his claim statement claiming compensation at Rs.13,000/- per acre. In order to prove the market value, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1, but no documents were marked on his side, whereas on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. As seen from the award, there was only one sale transaction took place in the year 1982 on 22.04.1982, where an extent of Ac.1.32 guntas of land was sold for Rs.5,000/-, which was discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as it is located at a distance of 3 to 4 kilometres away from the acquired land. The claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, deposed that he used to raise two crops in a year and in kharif season, he used to raise paddy as first crop and used to get an yield of 35 bags per acre and an income of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per acre; and ground nut as second crop and used to get an yield of 20 bags per acre and an income of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per acre. The evidence adduced also discloses that the land acquired is adjacent to the village Sriramagiri and the road between Lachagudem and Arekayalapadu village is passing just adjacent to the land and the land is suitable for providing house sites. After taking into consideration the cultivation of paddy crop, the reference court took the rate of paddy at Rs.140/- per quintal for an average yield of 15 quintals of paddy per acre. By applying the 11 years purchase, the reference court arrived the market value at Rs.23,100/- per acre. But however, fixed the market value at Rs.17,000/- per acre. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to disprove the claim of the claimant that he used to raise two crops in the acquired land in the year 1982 onwards and further that is only his livelihood. In view of the same, the fixation of the market value on the basis of capitalization method by the reference court, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02.03.2010 lmv