IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S.No.412 OF 2009 Date:21-02-2011 Between:- M/s.Basheera Bhawan Flat Owners Association, Rep.by its President Dr.A.V.V.Satya Narayana and three others. .. Claimants/Appellants And The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, G.H.M.C. (formerly M.C.H.), Hyderabad. .. Referring Officer/Respondent JUDGMENT:- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellants/claimants, who by way of this appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter alia seeks to question the correctness of the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.33 of 2006 dated 20-04-2009 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in proceedings arising under Section 18 of the Act, whereunder and whereby, the very claim in its entity was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that out of land to an extent of 4,127.47 square yards, an extent of 67.75 square yards from out of the front portion of premises No.16-1-49/C belonging to claimant No.1, and an extent of 116.17 square yards covering the main gate with supporting walls on either side and the front portion open space of house No.16-10-49 belonging to claimant Nos.2 to 4, situated in T.S.Nos.5/3 and 5/4 respectively in Ward No.180 and Block-B, Malakpet, Hyderabad, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of road widening by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 29-09-2005. Subsequently, an Award was passed on 13-03-2006 by fixing the market value at Rs.2,229/- per square yard for the landed property and for the structures as recommended by Engineering Department, in total Rs.2,03,171/- was awarded to claimant No.1 and Rs.3,48,374/- was awarded to claimant Nos.2 to 4. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the same, they sought for a reference in the reference Court. 3. The claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 7. No evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondent. Taking into consideration the fact that no sale transactions have been produced, the Court below did not propose to make any enhancement and dismissed the very claim. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that having regard to the evidence as available on record, i.e., oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, apart from the documents in Exs.A-1 to A-5, valuation certificates issued by the Sub Registrar, the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that since Reference Court has already held that Exs.A-1 to A-5 cannot be accepted for the purpose of determining the market value as they belong to post period of acquisition of lands, the Reference Court rightly dismissed the O.P. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as per Section 23 of the Act, an opportunity shall be given to the claimants to produce sale transactions in support of their claim, it would suffice in the interests of justice to provide an opportunity to the claimants by remanding the matter. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law after giving notices and opportunity to the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 21st February, 2011 AMD