HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.919 of 1999 16-06-2010 Between: Yennamani Rama Koteswararao and others. ………Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer (R.D.O.), Kovvur. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.919 of 1999 ORDER: (Per NA,J) The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of their lands acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. For the purpose of construction of approaches to the bridge across Yenamadurru drain, proceedings were initiated under the Act by issuing Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published in the A.P. State Gazette under Section 3 (a) of the Act, dated 23-01-1975. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Supplement to Part-I of A.P. Gazette, dated 17-04-1975. A total extent of Ac.3.83 cents was acquired. The appellants are concerned with the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.19 cents in Sy. No.273/3B, Ac.0.43 cents in Sy. No.273/7B and Ac.0.28 cents in Sy. No.273/6A3 of Duvva village, West Godavari District. The respondent herein (Land Acquisition Officer) passed Award No.7 of 1976, dated 12-05-1976. The acquired land for the purpose of fixing the market value was divided into two categories-category-I comprised agricultural lands and category-II comprised as building sites. The land of the appellants in Sy. No.273/6A3 (extent Ac.0.28 cents) was classified as category-I and the lands in Sy. No.273/3B (extent Ac.0.19 cents) and Sy. No.273/7B (extent Ac.0.43 cents) were classified as category-II. The respondent, on verification of certain sale deeds, took into consideration a sale transaction vide sale No.4/73 covered by document dated 30-06-1973, fixed the market value of the lands in category-I as Rs.10,790/- per acre. In respect of the lands falling in category-II, the respondent based on a sale transaction No.1/74, covered by document dated 13-03-1974 determined the market value at Rs.19,360/- per acre. The appellants sought for a reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act only in respect of the lands of category-II in Sy. No.273/3B and 273/7B at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The reference was numbered as O.P.No.83 of 1985. The Court below considered the claim of the appellants and on the basis of the material placed before it, enhanced the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said quantum, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Heard both parties. 4. The learned counsel Sri M.V.Suresh, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended that although the land of the appellants an extent of Ac.0.28 cetns in Sy. No.273/6A3 was also acquired, in respect of which also enhancement should have been granted, and that the excluding the said land from such enhancement is not legal. He further contended that compensation should have been enhanced at Rs.50,000/- per acre instead at Rs.40,000/- per acre as has been enhanced. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that the enhancement of compensation is reasonable and the land in Sy. No.273/6A3 was rightly excluded from enhancement as no reference was sought for in respect of the said land. 6. The points for consideration are; 1. Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation in respect of the land measuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in Sy. No.273/6A3; and 2. Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensastion at Rs.50,000/- per acre? 7. Point No.1:- Reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act was made in pursuance of a legal notice dated 09-06-1982 issued by the appellants. On perusal of the said letter, we noticed that reference was sought for in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos.273/3B and 273/7B only. There is no request to refer the matter in respect of the land in Sy. No.273/6A3. If the quantum of compensation as awarded by the respondent was not acceptable to the appellants, it is enjoined on them under Section 18 (1) of the Act to require in writing for a reference to the Court. In the absence of a requisition in writing, there is no statutory obligation on the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter, and in the absence of such reference, the reference Court could not assume jurisdiction. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the claimants filed two interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.1068 of 1987 and I.A.No.1109 of 1987 seeking incorporation of claim in respect of the land in Sy. No.273/6A3 and the said interlocutory applications were allowed. On such orders, it is contended that the Court was within its jurisdiction to consider the claim in respect of the land in that survey number also. The jurisdiction of the reference Court depends on a reference as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act which jurisdiction should be exercised within the bounds of the reference. 9. As noted earlier, there was no requisition from the appellants for a reference covering the land in Sy. No.273/6A3. The orders on the interlocutory applications do not invest such jurisdiction in the reference Court. The reference Court, therefore, rightly rejected the claim in respect of this item. Point No.1 is answered against the appellants accordingly. 10. Point No.2:- The reference Court considered the market value on the basis of an award which was a subject matter in O.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 1977 which related to the lands falling in category-II. In O.P.No.49 of 1977 compensation was granted at Rs.40,000/- per acre. On an appeal A.S.No.471 of 1986, preferred against the orders in O.P.Np.49 of 1977, this Court by orders dated 13-03-1997, confirmed the quantum. The reference Court did not accept enhancement awarded in O.P.No.69 of 1982 which was the subject matter of the said O.P. related to the year 1977, whereas, the notification in the present matter was of the year 1975. The reference Court, therefore, rightly awarded the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. The appellants are therefore, not entitled for enhancement of compensation over and above Rs.40,000/- per acre. Point No.2 is answered against the appellants accordingly. 11. In the above analysis, we find no infirmity in the orders of the reference Court in O.P.No.83 of 1985, dated 25-11-1998. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Dated: 16-06-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI KVR