G. YETHIRAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred by the State represented by the Special Deputy Collector, land Acquisition Unit-ll, Telugu Ganga project, Podalakuratcuddapah, challenging the common order of the Senior Civil Judge, rajampet, dated 9-2-2000.

( 2 ) THE appellant acquired the land situated at Chittayapalli and neighbouring villages in atloor Mandal with houses for submersion of Somasila Project. A notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was published on 14-8-1981 for acquisition of the houses of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an enquiry passed the awards on 17-9-1986 fixing the market value to various structures depending upon the nature and the area covered by the structure. The claimants received the compensation amount under protest and requested the Land acquisition Officer to refer the matter to Civil court under Section 18 of the Act. The Land acquisition Officer, accordingly, referred the matters to the Civil Court.

( 3 ) DURING the course of enquiry, the Land acquisition Officer was examined on behalf of the appellant and the awards were marked. The claimants examined their witnesses and also marked several documents. The lower court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties enhanced the market value of the structures by 80% over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Court, preferred these appeals challenging the order on the ground that the lower Court enhanced the market value by 30% on imagination basis without any assessment of the value of the houses on scientific lines.

( 4 ) IN the light of the contentions raised by the appellant, the point for consideration is"whether the enhancement of market value to an extent of 80% made by the lower Court is sustainable under law and whether it is liable to be reduced to a reasonable extent?"

( 5 ) CHITTAYAPALLI of Cuddapah District is one of the villages submerged in Somasila project. Before submersion of the village, the engineers of Roads and Buildings department alleged to have assessed the market value of each house. The Land acquisition Officer adopted the said value and passed the award.

( 6 ) THE claimants contended that they got the value of each house estimated through a private engineer and as per those estimates, the value of each house is much more than the value, fixed by the Engineer of R and B department. The lower Court did not base its decision either on the value fixed by the engineer of R and B Department or on the value fixed by the private engineer engaged by the claimants. The lower Court by relying on the judgment of Madras High Court in deptylal v. Collector of Nilgiris observed that the Court can make some guess work in fixing the market value of the houses. The court by relying on a judgment in LAO. P. Nos. 181 and 184 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, rajampet enhanced the market value by 80% by observing that the said court enhanced the market value by 100% per cent in the earlier judgment.

( 7 ) THE learned Government Pleader representing the appellant submitted that the lower Court did not take any of the documents available on record, into consideration while granting enhancement of the compensation, therefore, it is essential to verify the common evidence recorded in all the O. Ps.

( 8 ) P. W. 1, the Special Deputy Collector, land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project, unit-!, Cuddapah, deposed that the structures were acquired by the Government for somasila Project and an award was passed on 4-11-1997. The claimants received the amount under protest. Therefore, the reference was made under Section 18 of the act. Ex. A-1 is the award copy dt. 14-11-1997. The estimates for the structures were prepared by the Engineering Department. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on correct lines, therefore, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document