THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2190 OF 2000 24-11-2010 BETWEEN; b.Rama rao son of Perraju ...Appellant vs. The -Land Acquisition Officer, Jangareddy gudem ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2190 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per NRLN,J) The claimant in O.P.No.99 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru is the appellant herein aggrieved by the unsatisfactory enhancement of the compensation. According to the case of the claimant, the lands in Sy.No.295/1 to an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas and 296/4 to an extent of Ac.0.66 guntas were acquired for Vengalaraya Sagar Reservoir along with other lands. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an award inquiry and fixed the market value at Rs.6,000/- per acre. As the appellant was not satisfied with the compensation, filed an objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and accordingly it was referred to the court. The appellant herein filed a claim statement contending that the lands are fertile and black cotton soil, yielding 25 bags of paddy per acre for first crop and four bags of gingili per acre to second crop and the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into consideration the potentiality. In respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.264/1 to 7, 266 and 267 the compensation was granted at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per acre. On behalf of the claimant, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer RW.1 was examined. After considering the material on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge granted compensation @ Rs.11,000/- per acre and questioning the said award and claiming enhancement at the rate of Rs.22,000/- the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge is real and correct? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled for further enhancement and if so to what amount? 3. Whether the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? 4. To what relief? POINTS:- The appellant herein is a Village Karanam having worked for a long period. Except his evidence, no other material evidence is adduced to prove the sale transaction in the neighbourhood. The appellant has marked Ex.A-1 the sketch and Exs.A-2 and 3, the decrees in other O.Ps pertaining to the acquisition for the same purpose. The learned Senior Civil Judge in para.17 of his judgment specifically found that the claimant has failed to prove his case with regard to quantum of compensation and also failed to prove the potentiality of the land. The lower court also did not totally accept the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and accordingly enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,000/- per acre. Evidently in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the claimant is in the position of the plaintiff and he has to prove the market value existing by the date of notification, the potentialities and the fertility of the land. The appellant also not produced any sale transaction reflecting the market value of the land by the date of notification. He relied upon the fertility of the land and raising crops. From his own admission, it is quite clear that he worked as a Village Karanam and as rightly found by the lower court, he could have filed No.II Adangal if not for the acquired land, about the neighbouring lands to show the fertility. He claims to have sold some lands in the year 1984 but the sale deed was not filed and sale consideration is also not disclosed from his evidence. It was said to be the part of the same land under acquisition. None of the neighbours were examined to prove the claim of the appellant. Exs.A-2 and 3 are said to be some awards pertaining to some lands in Sy.Nos.333 and 334 of Vegavaram village which were acquired for the same purpose. There is no evidence to show the similarity of the lands under Exs.A-2 and A-3 and the land under present appeal. When several acres of land acquired, it does not mean all the lands that was under acquisition is of the same neighbour and potentialities, the learned Senior Civil Judge found that the lands under Exs.A-2 and A-3 are not close to the acquired lands and therefore the learned Senior Civil Judge has discarded them. But however it appears that though the evidence of both sides is found to be not conclusive keeping mind in Exs.A- 2 and A-3, the learned Senior Civil Judge seems to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.11,000/-, it appears to be reasonable. Therefore, it has to be held that the appellant has failed to prove the sustainability of the claim for enhancement of the compensation and the compensation granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and correct. Accordingly, the points are answered against the appellant. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. But in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 24th NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR