HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DT. 31-5-2010 AS No.2754/2000 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad, …Appellant V. 1. A.V. Subba Rao and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO AS No.2754/2000 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad is in appeal filed against the judgment of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District dt. 30-1-1997 made in OP No.71/88. For laying Manjeera pipeline, an extent of 742 sq.yards situate at Alwal, belonging to the claimants, was acquired by issuing a draft notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) dt. 17-1-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the due formalities passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at R.35/- per sq.yard. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court and the matter was referred to the Civil Court, where it was numbered as OP No.71/88. Before the reference court, P.Ws.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the referring officer, no evidence, either oral or documentary has been adduced. The reference court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, by the impugned award fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.80/- per sq.yard. The claimant No.3 himself examined as P.W.1. He filed Ex.A-1-sale deed dt.3-3-1984, under which a house plot measuring 263.89 sq.yards in S.No.181 was sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.yard. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the acquired land and the land covered under Ex.A-1 are separated by a railway track. None was examined to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 except making a suggestion that the land covered under Ex.A-1 is far away from the acquired land. P.W.1 denied the said suggestion. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 discloses that the from the total area of the plots purchased by claimant Nos.1 to 3, ie., 281.66, 358.8 and 303.62 sq.yards, the Government acquired only 214, 235 and 239 and ½ sq.yards only. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the claimants purchased plots to have their own houses and major portions of the plots were acquired and small extents remained unacquired. By excluding small extents of land from acquisition, the same has become useless for the claimants to construct houses. In view of the same, the claimants are entitled to compensation for the acquired land apart from the compensation for severance and injurious affection of the remaining land ie., unacquired land. Since the claimants have not filed any cross appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, we hve no option except to confirm the market value fixed at Rs.80/- per sq.yard. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal suit is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ RAJA ELANGO,J Date:-31-5-2010 kmr .