( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal in O. P. No. 117 of 1983 whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of their lands which were acquired for the purpose of excavation of Kakatiya canal. The total extent involved is Acs. 22-06 guntas in Chinthagattu village of Warangal Taluk. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 5-3-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 28-3-1980, fixed the market value of Bhagayat lands (dry lands) at Rs. 3,100/- per acre and of wet lands at Rs. 4,200/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer also fixed the compensation for the trees (Sendhi and Palmyrah) at Rs. 48-40 per tree. In the lands belonging to the claimants 6 and 7 there were two wells for which the land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 51,165/- for the 6th claimant s well and Rs. 9,880/- for the 7th claimant s well. In addition, the Land acquisition Officer awarded the statutory solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 2 ) ON a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal, has enhanced the compensation for Bhagayat lands to Rs. 15,000/- per acre and for the wet lands to Rs. 18,000/- per acre. The learned Subordinate Judge has also enhanced the compensation for the trees to Rs. 300/- per tree. Insofar as the wells are concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation in respect of the 6th claimant s well to Rs. 77,750/- and the compensation in respect of the 7th claimant s well to Rs. 27,151 / -.

( 3 ) QUESTIONING the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has contended that the fixation of the market value of the lands at Rs. 15,000/- and rs. 18,000/- per acre by the lower Court is excessive. He submitted that in respect of similar lands acquired under the self-same notification, this Court has confirmed the grant of Rs. 12,000/- per acre by judgment dated 14-6-1989 in A. S. No. 632 of 1987. He also contended that the evaluation of the trees and wells separately in addition to the market value of the land is not permissible and placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Koyappathodi M. vs. State of Kerala.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that in respect of some other lands which were acquired for the same canal, this Court has confirmed the grant of Rs. 15,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 18,000/- per acre for wet lands in A. S. No. 2400 of 1987 dated 22-12-1989 and A. S. No. 2444 of 1987 dated 5-6-1989. He further submitted that the enhancement of compensation in respect of the trees as well as the wells is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.

( 5 ) TO prove the market value of the lands, apart from the oral evidence of some of the claimants who are examined as P. Ws. 1 to 4 and 6, the claimants have relied mainly on a sale deed dated 12-8-1977 (Ex. A-2) whereunder P. W. 7 sold an extent of Acs. 0-20 guntas of dry land in Survey No. 22-F of the same village at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Apart from this document, there is no other documentary evidence. Ex. A-1 is the sketch map showing the different Survey nos. in the locality. Survey No. 22-F, which is covered by Ex. A-2 sale deed does not appear anywhere in the said sketch. It is not clear from the material on record whether the said land is similar to the lands under acquisition in the present case and whether it is proximate to the lands under acquisition, apart from the interested oral evidence of the claimants themselves. Further, it is the well established principle that the price fetched for a small extentof land cann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document