IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.Nos.928 and 976 of 2007 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.Unit, P.J.Project, Gadwal. … Appellant And Chinna Bashumiya & 9 others. … Respondents. The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.Nos.928 and 976 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition Unit), PJP, Gadwal, preferred these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) questioning the common order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P.Nos.38 of 2005 and 39 of 2005 enhancing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.60,000/- per acre, as against Rs.23,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. For the sake of convenience the facts of Land Acquisition Appeal Suit No. 928 of 2007, have been referred. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that an extent of Ac.7- 25 guntas of land comprising of various survey numbers situated at Thumpally village of Atmakur Mandal was acquired for excavation of Distributory No.6 from KM 16.600 to KM 18.107 PJP, by issuing a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 16.03.1999. After due inquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award No.54/99 dated 15.07.1999 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.23,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation @ Rs.80,000/- per acre. In support of their case, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, she herself was examined as R.W.1 and Award No.54 of 1999 dated 15.07.1999 was marked as Ex.B1. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of common order in O.P.No.42 of 1990 and batch and Ex.A2 is the certified copy of common order in A.S.Nos.1447 to 1474 of 1994 which reveal that for the lands acquired under those proceedings reference Court fixed compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Basing on Exs.A1 and A2 reference Court fixed compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre and after giving escalation @ 10% per year, awarded compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition fairly conceded that the lands acquired under Exs.A1 and A2 are in the adjacent village and similar in nature, potentiality and value to the lands acquired under these proceedings. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the reference Court basing on Exs.A1 and A2 and after assigning valid reasons enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre and the same is justified. It is not in dispute that the lands acquired in Thumpally village are adjacent to the lands at Medipalli village and the land belonging to P.W.2 at Medipally was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer vide draft notification dated 06.04.1989 published under Section 4(1) of the Act. In that case the reference court enhanced the market value of the land to Rs.30,000/- per acre and the same was confirmed by this Court vide Ex.A2. It is also not in dispute that Motlampally Village is adjacent to Thumpally village and the land belonging to P.W.3 was acquired through notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 10.08.1999. Since it is not in dispute that the nature, potentiality and value of the lands acquired in these appeals and the lands under Exs.A1 and A2 are similar, the reference Court is justified in relying on Exs.A1 and A2 in fixing the compensation. Since the compensation for the similarly situated lands acquired about 10 years prior to the present acquisition, was fixed at Rs.30,000/- per acre, the reference court is justified in giving escalation @ 10% per year and fixing the compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre and the same appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the reference Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 29th July 2009 LMV