HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.1045 OF 2007 DATED:25-08-2009 BETWEEN: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Unit, Priyadarshini Jurala Project, Gadwal. …Appellant AND Namala Laxminarayana (died) per L.Rs. & others. …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.1045 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Unit, Priyadarshini Jurala Project, Gadwal is directed assailing the enhancement of compensation by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P.No.103 of 1995, dated 7.12.2004. The brief facts of the case are as follows: An extent of Ac.1.09 cents of land belonging to the claimants in Sy.No.191/3/2,situated at Kothapally Village, Gadwal Mandal was acquired for the purpose of Priyadarshini Jurala Project through notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 21.11.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the usual procedure, passed award No.10/84, dated 30.3.1984 fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,100/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- per acre. The claimants-respondents having not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil Court. Before the reference Court, the claimants filed a claim statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition, the 1st claimant apart from himself examining as P.W.1, examined one more witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. Whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer himself examined as R.W.1 and marked the copy of the award as Ex.B.1. The reference Court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties particularly, Ex.A.1-certified copy of Order passed in O.P.No.72 of 1986 and batch, dated 27.4.1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal; and Ex.A.2-certified copy of judgment of this Court in A.S.No.982 of 1994 and batch, dated 20.9.1996 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.27,000/- per acre. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, who have taken us through the evidence adduced by the parties. P.W.1 testified that the land covered by the same village was earlier acquired through notification dated 22.4.1980 which is the subject-matter of O.P.No.72 of 1986 and batch, and that the reference Court under Ex.A.1 fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre, and that the appeals preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer were dismissed by this Court confirming the fixation of the market value, and that Ex.A.2 is the copy of common judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.982 of 1994 and batch which were preferred against the order covered by Ex.A.1. The Land Acquisition Officer as R.W.1 admitted the factum of issuance of earlier notification covered by the same village, where the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre, which has become final. Since the notification covered by the present O.P. is 3 ½ years after the earlier notification covered by Ex.A.1, the reference Court after giving due escalation of 10% per each year for the time gap, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.27,000/- per acre. Awarding escalation at the rate of 10% for every subsequent year after the base year is neither excessive nor unreasonable as held by the Apex Court (s e e Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib (2002) 3 SCC 688). Further, it is not the case of the Land Acquisition Officer that compensation fixed by the reference Court under Ex.A.1 does not pertain to the same village but some other village. Inasmuch as the evidence adduced by both the parties clinchingly establishes that the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.27,000/- per acre basing on the earlier notification covered by Ex.A.1 of same village which was acquired for the same purpose 3 ½ years earlier to the present notification wherein the market value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre, we do not see any error of principle of law by the reference Court in fixing the market value by giving escalation for the time gap warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. AUGUST 25, 2009 Tsr.