IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for land acquisition must be just and fair, based on true market value, regardless of the amount claimed by landowners.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Smt. A. Jayanathi, learned Government Pleader for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Upendra, learned counsel representing the respondents/Cross objectors.

2. Aggrieved by the Common Order dated 30.08.2008 in LAOP No. 384 of 2003 & batch on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the present appeals have been preferred.

3. For the purpose of excavation of major canal in 9th block of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC), a Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.20.32 cents in different survey numbers of Banaganapalle Village was issued on 17.04.1998. The Draft Declaration was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 30.04.1998. In the enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants participated. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands under acquisition into two categories i.e., Category 1 – Dry lands fed with rain water and Category 2 - Dry lands having irrigation potentialities and fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- and Rs.43,000/- respectively. The respondents/ claimants dissatisfied with the said fixation, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement.

4. Before the Reference Court, the claimant in O.P. No. 384 of 2003 got himself examined as RW-1 apart from the Mandal Surveyor of Banaganapalle and the Advocate Commissioner as RWs. 2 and 3 respectively. RWs. 4 and 5 were also examined on behalf of the claimants/respondents and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked apart from Exs.X1, X2, C1 to C3. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the Referring Officer, Ex.A1-Sketch Plan and Ex.A2-Copy of the Award No. 12 of 1999 dated 18.08.1999 were marked with consent.

5. Learned Reference Court while formulating a point as to Whether the Award passed under Ex.A2 reflects the true market value of the acquired land, considered the material on record and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,97,500/- per acre. While, it is contention of the learned Government Pleader that the said fixation is highly excessive, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants/cross objectors argues that the acquired lands are more valuable and the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

6. In elaboration, the learned Government Pleader contends that the Land Acquisition Officer, after duly considering as many as 38 sale transactions, had fixed the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre for the dry lands and Rs.43,000/- for irrigated dry lands, which is just and reasonable. She contends that the learned Reference Court, without appreciating the matter in a proper prospective and overlooking the crucial aspect that the respondents claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer, grossly erred in enhancing the compensation in respect of both the categories of lands to Rs.2,97,500/-. She contends that the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Ex.A2 i.e. Award No. 12 of 1999 dated 18.08.1999 is wholly misconceived and the lands under the said Award are far away from the subject matter lands and do not reflect the correct value. She submits that the subject matter lands are agricultural lands situated in an interior place and the same cannot be compared with the other lands, which were converted into house sites. Referring to the evidence, the learned Government Pleader submits that even as per the witnesses i.e., RW-1, RW-2 and RW-3, who were examined on behalf of the claimants, the subject matter lands are agricultural lands, whereas the Exs.B2 and B4 are pertaining to house sites. Contending that the enhancement of compensation uniformly in respect of both categories of lands is highly excessive, that the Order under challenge is liable to be interfered with and that the respondents/claimants are not entitled for any further compensation, she prays for allowing the Appeals and dismissal of the Cross Objections.

7. On the other h