IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO. 1180 OF 1991 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acqusition) Somasila Project, Atmakur Railways, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND Manneni Pedda Veeraiah S/o Veeraiah and 11 others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Somasila Project, Atmakur has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P No. 749 of 1987 dated 28.8.1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac. 3.54 cents of land in S.Nos. 1011/1, 1043/3, 1011/2, 1044/1, 1045, 1046/1, 1011/4 and 1011/5, 405, 406, 412 and 413 situated in Reach No. 16 of Settivaripalli Village limits, Obulam, Gopavaram Revenue Mandal was acquired for Somasila Project vide notification published in the gazette dated 7.7.1980 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, passed an award on 17.9.1986 fixing the market value of the registered wet lands at Rs.14,000/- per acre. The claimants received the compensation under protest and contended that the amount awarded was insufficient. Being dissatisfied with the Award, the respondent-claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred, taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge in O.P No. 749 of 1987. In order to establish the claim, claimants examined RWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. B1 to B4 and on behalf of the referring officer, no witnesses were examined and got marked Exs. A1 & A- 2. The learned Subordinate Judge upon appreciation of both documentary and oral evidence available on record fixed the market value of the registered wet lands at Rs. 22,000/- per acre by common order. The learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet, upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, fixed the market value at Rs. 22,000/- per acre. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Learned Government Pleader contended that the judgment and decree of the reference Court is unjust and the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 14,000/- to 22,000/- relying upon the Commissioner’s report. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants submits that after considering the nature of the land and the market value at the time of notification, and also relying on the Commissioner’s report the reference court enhanced the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court. As seen from the record, the authorities have acquired an extent of Ac.3.54 cents of land situated in Sattivaripalle Village of Cuddapah District, as mentioned in the impugned order, as they were submergible under Somasila Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 14,000/- per acre and on reference the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22,000/- per acre. It is stated that aggrieved by the common order passed in O.P.No. 748 of 1987, the State preferred appeal A.S.No. 963 and this Court dismissed the same by an order dated 31.3.1999. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ Heard. In view of the rival contentions raised by both the parties as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the court below, we once again went through the order of the court below and the entire evidence both oral and documentary made available on record. We feel that the reasons adopted by the court below and the basis to give such reasons in enhancing the compensation are quite just and reasonable. In our view, the compensation awarded by the court below is quite just and adequate.” We have perused the judgment. A.S.No. 963 of 1991 dated 31.3.1999 was preferred as against the common order passed by the Reference Court in O.P. Nos. 748 and 749 of 1987 and the same was dismissed with the above observation. Following the same, this appeal is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO,J DATE: 22.10.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies