IMPORTANT POINT
The market value of acquired land must reflect its potentiality and relevant market transactions, ensuring just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

1. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader. Also heard Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant in L.A.A.S. No. 871 of 2011.

2. Against the common order dated 13.04.2011 in L.A.O.P. No. 58 of 2007 and batch on the file of the Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, the State preferred the present appeals.

3. For the purpose of excavation of Handri Neeva Sujala Sravanti (HNSS) Main Canal, in Bandi Thandrapadu Village., Land Acquisition notification dated 15.11.2006 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for an extent of Ac.32.96 cents and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.11.2006. During the award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands into category-I (dry lands) and category-II (irrigation dry lands) and fixed the compensation at Rs.38,200/- and Rs.51,000/- per acre respectively. An Award dated 06.01.2007 in respect of an extent of Ac.5.25 cents and Ac.5.77 cents in Sy. Nos. 160/1A and 160/2A respectively, which are subject matter of appeals was passed. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, claiming compensation at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court while formulating the point for consideration as to whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, enhanced the same from Rs.38,200/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.

4. The learned Government Pleader inter alia submits that the said fixation/enhancement is without any valid basis, highly excessive and not tenable. She submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into account as many as 95 Sale Deeds and rightly fixed the compensation in respect of the lands which are dry at Rs.38,200/- per acre. She further contends that even as per the evidence adduced by the respondents-claimants i.e. Ex.B.2-Sale Deed dated 11.03.2008, the cost of the land in the subject matter village was Rs.40,000/- per acre. Further that the acquired lands are situate at a distance of 1½ Kms. from the land sold under Ex.B.2 and therefore, the learned Reference Court went wrong in fixing the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. She submits that at best, the compensation should have been at Rs.52,000/- per acre. Insofar as the other material on which reliance is placed by the respondents-claimants, she submits that the same would not in any way aid their case for enhancement of the compensation. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that even as per the oral evidence adduced on behalf of claimants, it is clear that the subject matter lands are far way from the Town and admittedly they are dry lands, thus under any stretch of imagination, the same would not fetch Rs.1,00,000/- per acre as fixed by the learned Reference Court. Making the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeals.

5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in L.A.A.S. No. 871 of 2011 contends that even as per the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer, the distance between Tadakanipalli Village and subject matter land situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village is about 1½ Kms. He submits that the lands which are situate in Bandi Thadrapadu Village were sold at the rate of Rs.3,35,000/- per acre in the year 2004 itself vide Ex.B.16 dated 13.09.2004 and an extent of Ac.0.60 cents was sold at Rs.2,62,000/- vide Ex.B.17 dated 10.02.2006. He submits that the learned Reference Court had taken the relevant material on record including the potentiality of the land etc. into consideration and had rightly enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, it is just and reasonable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeals.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

7. Before the reference Court, the Referring Officer was examin