Market value for compensation must reflect actual conditions and potential of the land, based on comparable sales, excluding speculative advantages from acquisition schemes.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking an enhancement of the compensation for the acquired lands. The appeals would arise from LAOP Nos. 1 of 2011, 2 of 2010, and 2 of 2011, dated 17.02.2012, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court"). In the impugned order, the compensation for the acquired lands was increased from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.3,28,000/- per acre.

2. These three appeals would arise from the Land Acquisition Notifications dated 08.06.2008 and 09.02.2009, concerning lands in Kanala Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. The three cases involve common facts and issues; therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the three appeals have been heard together, treating L.A.A.S. No. 527 of 2012 as the leading appeal.

3. For convenience, the Parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their ranking in the Reference Court.

4. The Government has issued a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.2,05,000/- per Acre in respect of the lands vide Award No.15 of 2009 dated 14.10.2009.

5. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in Award No.15 of 2009, dated 14.10.2009, by the Land Acquisition Officer, several landowners submitted references under Section 18 of the Act. These references were adjudicated by orders dated 17.02.2012, as stated supra, by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants/claimants have filed the present first appeals.

6. The facts of the present appeals, leading to the referral of matters by the Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O.) to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, are as follows: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, filed a reference regarding the award passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.15/2009, dated 14.10.2009. This referral was made after the claimant submitted an application requesting the award be referred to the Reference Court, seeking an enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. This pertains to the acquisition proceedings concerning Survey Numbers 164/2, 165/2, 951, 952/3, and 954/1B, covering an extent of 3.89 acres in Kanala Village, Nandyal Mandal.

7. The Appellant/Claimant filed his respective claim statement, and the claim of the claimant is as follows:

(a) The Award issued by the Land Acquisition Officer is unjust, improper, and not maintainable. Furthermore, they did not conduct a thorough inquiry or provide the claimant with an opportunity to present evidence.

(b) The method employed by the Referring Officer/L.A.O., in determining the compensation lacks both factual and legal basis, failing to adhere to the principles outlined in the Land Acquisition Act. The L.A.O. did not consider the potential value of the acquired land when assessing its market value.

(c) The claimant asserts that the acquired land was used for irrigating paddy crops with water from the K.C. Canal, generating an annual income of Rs.50,000/- per acre. While the Land Acquisition Officer acknowledges that the lands are adjacent to the village, he contends that the market value was not adequately determined, failing to account for the land’s housing potential. Kanala village is located on the Nandyal to Koilakuntla road, 4 kms., from Nonepalli. The area has numerous industries and housing colonies between Nandyal and Kanala, leading to significant demand for housing sites, industrial setups, and educational institutions. The claimant asserts that the acquired land has become part of an urban area, with much greater potential, which the Land Acquisition Officer overlooked when fixing the market value.

(d) The claimant argues that at the time of the 4(1