THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1204 of 1998 DT.23-11-2011 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Husnabad … Appellant And Shiva Rama Kistaiah r/o Mohammadhapoor … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1204 of 1998 J U D G M E N T: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S.Appa Rao) The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Husnabad, the Referring Oﬃcer ﬁled this appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 8-11-1990 in O.P.No.5 of 1986, on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. The appellant herein is the respondent in O.P.No.5 of 1986. The Land of the claimant of an extent of Ac.3-26 gts in Sy.Nos.1,2 and 167 situated at Mohamadapoor village of Husunabad Mandal was acquired for the purpose of house-sites to the backward and scheduled caste by issuing notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in District Gazettee No.8 dated 23-3-1984. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer in his Award No.B/4838/83 dated 5-11-1985 awarded the compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre and for the irrigation well at Rs.30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant sought reference by ﬁling a claim petition stating that the compensation granted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is very meagre. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Husnabad referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court below, after elaborate trial and by placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, Exs.A1 and A.2, RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,000/- per acre to Rs.25,000/- per acre and additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the irrigation well apart from Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals mainly contended that the reference Court erroneously enhanced the compensation placing reliance on the documents Exs.A.1 and A.2, original registered sale deeds dated 8-4-1983 and 6-4-1983 respectively, and that in any view of the matter, the enhancement of compensation is excessive and exorbitant. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.10,000/- per acre to Rs.25,000/- per acre by the reference Court is sustainable and the reason given therein is appropriate. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and two other witnesses PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2, original registered sale deeds dated 8-4-1983 and 6-6-1983 respectively. Appellant herein examined one A.Rajamouli as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 B.6. According to the evidence of PW.1, the claimant himself sold Ac.0-02 guntas of land to PW.2 from out of Sy.No.167 at Rs.605/- per gunta. Ex.A.2 is another original registered sale deed dated 6-4-1993 under which he sold Ac.0-02 guntas of land to one Chitti Veeraiah at Rs.605/- per gunta. Therefore, as per Exs.A.1 and A.2, the value of the land per acre calculated at Rs.605/- per gunta comes to Rs.24,000/- per acre. The above two sale transactions are also in Sy.No.167 in which the Government acquired the land in question. T h e Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Husnabad is examined as RW.1. According to him, he awarded the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre and for the well Rs.30,000/- basing on the estimates prepared by the Engineering Department. The reference Court while discussing the potentiality of the land in question deducted 1/3rd towards laying of roads and for betterment charges and arrived at Rs.26,000/- per acre by taking the value of the land at Rs.40,000/- per acre basing on the documents Exs.A.1 and A.2. It is also an admitted fact that the Panchayatraj Department estimated the value of the well in question at Rs.35,000/-, but the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has granted only Rs.30,000/-. However, the Court below ﬁxed the same at Rs.35,000/- for the well as estimated by the Panchayatraj Department. The learned Government Pleader did not dispute Ex.A.1 as the said document is prior to the present 4 (1) notification. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the ﬁndings of the reference Court enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- per acre to Rs.25,000/- per acre and Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- for the well in question is just and reasonable. Hence, we see no ground, to diﬀer with the ﬁndings of the reference Court below. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree dated 8-11-1990 in O.P.No.5 of 1986, on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar is conﬁrmed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Date: 23-11-2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO (The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S.Aappa Rao) APPEAL SUIT No.1204 of 1998 DT.23-11-2011 GRK