HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No. 2352 of 1993 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This appeal is directed against the award in Land Acquisition O.P.No.32 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Siddipet, dated 24.09.1991, enhancing the compensation awarded to the respondents herein. For laying a road from Kolgoor to Venkatraopet, proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated ending with the award by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing a compensation of Rs.1835/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.4260/- per acre for wet lands of Venkatraopet village. The claimants received the compensation under protest and their claim for enhanced compensation was referred to the Civil Court. The claimants contended that the Land Acquisition Officer took advance possession and did not fix the market value as per the sale statistics available with him. Because of laying of the road, the lands of the claimants were inconveniently divided into two parts on either side of the road, causing huge loss and the cultivation of the lands under tank and also Kundleru project was adversely affected. The claimants also contended that in O.P.No.1 of 1989 relating to lands of Yetigadda Kistapur village, which is neighbouring village, the Civil Court fixed a compensation of Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.15,000/- per acre for wet lands. The claimants hence requested for a compensation of Rs.45,000/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.25,000/- per acre for dry lands along with the statutory benefits. The claim was resisted by the State contending that the claimants did not protest while receiving the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and that the acquired lands have no potential value. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined PWs 1 to 4 and R.Ws 1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Ex.B.1. In the impugned award, the reference Court referred extensively to the rival contentions and the evidence and deduced from Ex.A.6 certified copy of the pahani about cultivation of paddy and sugar cane in the subject lands which probablised the existence of assured source of water supply to the said lands. Though Exs.A.1 and A.2 registered sale deed and agreement of sale were a little prior to acquisition notification, the reference Court opined that they ought to have been taken into consideration as comparable sales. The reference Court referred to the award in O.P.No.1 of 1989 fixing the market value of wet and dry lands at a much higher scale and though the acquisition under O.P.No.1 of 1989 was for the purposes of house sites, the reference Court considered that compensation can be considered to be fixed based on comparable circumstances relating to the lands though the purposes of acquisition were different in respect of the lands in adjacent villages. The reference Court also felt that the advance possession of the acquired lands was taken even prior to initiation of land acquisition proceedings and fixation of the market value at Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.15,000/- per acre for wet lands has to be adopted with reference to the compensation fixed in O.P.No.1 of 1989. The State preferred the present appeal challenging the said order, contending that the lands covered by O.P.No.1 of 1989 were no way comparable and the interested evidence of PWs 1 to 4 could not have been taken into consideration by the reference Court and the version of R.W.1 ought to have been accepted and no enhancement should have been granted. Due to the demise of the respondents 4, 11, 12 and 17 during the pendency of the appeal, their legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record, by orders in CMP Nos. 22858, 22859, 22860 and 22861 of 2003. Smt.A.B.Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, and Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants, are heard. The point for consideration is whether the fixation of compensation by the reference Court is excessive and has to be interfered with? The appellant on its part did not produce any documentary evidence before the reference Court and R.W.1 the Superintendent of the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer was only speaking about Ex.B.1 award. The witness did not claim any personal knowledge about the location or utility or value of the subject lands and as opposed to such evidence, PW.4 was the person who purchased 7 guntas of land for Rs.4,500/- under Ex.A.2 agreement of sale and deposed about the road having been formed two years later to his purchase. Similarly, PW.3 knew the parties to Ex.A.1 registered sale deed under which 10 guntas of dry land was sold for Rs.6,000/-. The evidence of PW.4, the purchaser under Ex.A.2, and the evidence of PW.3 the attestor of Ex.A.1 indicated the genuineness of the transactions, in the absence of any contrary evidence, and the vendor under Ex.A.2 further corroborated PW.4 as PW.2. PWs 2 to 4 were not shown to be in any way so interested in the claimants as to resort to falsehood about the value of the lands in question, even assuming that the evidence of PW.1, the 21st claimant is tainted with interestedness. The appellant did not show the award in O.P.No.1 of 1989 to have been in any way modified or varied or set aside subsequently in any other judicial proceeding and notwithstanding the different purposes for which lands were acquired under O.P.No.1 of 1989 and herein, the comparable features referred to by the reference Court like the adjacent location of the villages and similar nature of lands cannot be ignored. The reference Court taking the earlier order in O.P.No.1 of 1989 on merits as providing satisfactory guidance for fixing the market value of the lands in question herein cannot be considered as unjust, unreasonable or improper. Though the grounds of appeal indulged in generalities about the acceptance of award under Ex.A.3 or the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, such objections cannot be claimed to have been substantiated by the material on record and what was awarded by the reference Court cannot be considered to be excessive than the reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled along with the statutory benefits. The appeal has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 23rd December, 2010. PNV