THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.Nos.79, 83 and 92 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These three appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal are directed against the common order, dated 25.09.2006, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P.Nos.501, 500 and 499 of 1996 respectively. An extent of Acs.2.75 cents (0.92, 0.92 and 0.91 cents) of dry land situated in the limits of Yarasandoddi, Hamlet of Kuchinerla Village in Survey No.773/2 was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the community. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 16.11.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due procedure, passed Award No.8 of 1996, dated 14.08.1996, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants, who received the compensation under protest, filed petitions to refer the matter to the Civil Court. On reference being made to the Civil Court, and on receipt of notices, the claimants appeared before the Civil Court and filed their respective claim statements claiming compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Since all the O.Ps are covered by the same award and same notification, the reference Court clubbed them and recorded common evidence. To substantiate the market value, on behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, he examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked the copy of Award No.8 of 1996, dated 14.08.1986, certified copy of registered sale deed dated 23.12.1994, certified copy of Pahani for the year 1995-96, and location sketch map as Exs.B.1 to B.4. P.W.1, who is the claimant in O.P.No.501 of 1996, deposed that the acquired lands are adjacent to the village and are having potentiality to be used as house sites. The lands of Kuchinerla Village, which is contiguous shivar to the present acquired land, were acquired by issuing notification on 10.04.1987, and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.2,000/- per acre. On reference, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per acre under Ex.A.1-certified copy of order in O.P.No.15 of 1990, dated 01.02.1996, and on appeal made by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court reduced the compensation to Rs.18,000/- per acre under Ex.A.2- certified copy of order in A.S.No.1331 of 1996, dated 18.10.1998. R.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer categorically admitted that the acquired lands are abutting to the village; that Kuchinerla is revenue village and Yersandoddi and Sompuram Thandas are hamlets of Kuchinerla and that the lands covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the acquired lands are similar in nature and are situated in Gattu Mandal. P.W.2, who is a party to Exs.A.1 and A.2 proceedings, deposed that the proceedings under the said exhibits are true and correct. The evidence adduced by the parties clinchingly establish that the lands covered by Ex.A.1 were notified 8 years 7 months prior to the issuance of the present notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is well settled that awarding escalation at the rate of 10% for every subsequent year after the base year is neither excessive nor unreasonable in view of the rising prices as held by the Supreme Court (see Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib (2002) 3 SCC 688). The lower Court, after taking into consideration the settled legal position in Ranjit Singh v. Union Terriotory of Chandigarh[1], Valluri Veerabhadra Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer[2] and Lila Ghosh (dead) through LR Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of West Bangal[3], and after giving escalation @ 10% for each succeeding year, rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.33,300/- per acre (Rs.18,000/- + Rs.15,300/- towards escalation). In view of the same, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. The appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 25.08.2009 va [1] AIR 1993 SC 227 [2] 1998(3) ALD 129 (D.B) [3] 2004(1) ALD 58 (SC)