THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2669 OF 2000 Dated. 25-02-2011 Between: The Tahasildar and LAO, Kotauratla …Appellant Vs. ..Respondents R.Achayyamma and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2669 OF 2000 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The Appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.38 of 1987 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram enhancing the compensation of the acquired lands from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.7.63 cents of land situated in Rachepalli Village, Katauratla Taluk was acquired and an award enquiry was passed on 30-01-1984 fixing the market value at Rs.6,000/-. The claimants were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and they claiming that the acquired land has got potentiality and each acre will costs about Rs.16,000/- and accordingly at their request, a reference was made to the court below. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000/- and ordered deduction @ 20%. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? 2. To what relief? POINTS: In support of the claim, PW.1 who is the claimant No.6 deposed that the acquired land is adjacent to Narsipatnam Railway Station and Narsipatnam—Anakapalli Road and there are rice mills and residential houses and relied on an agreements under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the attester on Exs.A-1 and A-2 was examined as PW.2. In 1980 the land was sold @ Rs.17,000/- per acre and by the date of acquisition, it is more. The learned Subordinate Judge found that too much importance cannot be given to Exs.A-1 and A-2 since there is nothing to show that they were acted upon but however taking into consideration the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and also the location of the property and also the raising prices of the lands in the vicinity, the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000/- after giving 20% deduction and the market value works out to Rs.9,600/-. Evidently, the learned Subordinate Judge was conscious about the nature of the land and also the fact that the award itself shows that the market value of the land in 1981 under Ex.B-3 also is about Rs.10,000/-. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contends that instead of 20% deduction the court should have given 30% deduction towards development. It is to be noted that the land is an agricultural land the market value was fixed at an acreage rate. Even then the learned Subordinate Judge has given deduction @ 20%. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in ordering 20% deduction is low. So also the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.9,600/- cannot be said to be excessive or without any material on record or without considering the potentialities. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in fixing the market value is legal and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the court below. Accordingly, the points are answered. Accordingly the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR