JUDGMENT :

NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

The State aggrieved by the Order dated 22.09.2014 in LAOP No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge And Sessions Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, filed the present Appeal.

2) For better appreciation of the case, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the L.A.O.P.

3) Heard Mr.T.Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader, attached to the office of the learned Advocate General for the appellant. Also heard Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material on record.

4) For the purpose of Kandaleru Project a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was issued on 21.03.2007. The Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 04.10.2007. Pursuant to the said Draft Notification, the structures of the respondents / claimants situated in Regadapalli Village of Rapur Mandal were acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.3/2009-10, dated 25.09.2009 determining the compensation / value of the structures by taking into consideration its nature and the plinth area.

5) Aggrieved by the value / compensation fixed by the LAO, the respondents / claimants while receiving the same under protest, invoked Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court on behalf of the respondents / claimants PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 i.e., Award dated 25.09.2009 was marked. The learned Reference Court vide order under appeal enhanced the market value of the structures per sq.mtr., by 150% over and above the market value fixed by the LAO. It had also granted the statutory benefits on the enhanced market value.

6) Mr.Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the appellant made elaborate submissions contending that the order under appeal is unsustainable, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. He submits that the enhancement of market value by the Reference Court is highly excessive, without any valid basis and therefore liable to be interfered with. He also contends that the Reference Court on an erroneous appreciation of the matter went wrong in coming to a conclusion that the value fixed by the LAO appears to be very low and arbitrary. He submits that the LAO determined the market value on the basis of the estimates prepared by the Engineering Wing of the Irrigation and Power Department, whereas the estimates (Ex.A1) relied on by the respondent / claimants were prepared by a private Civil Engineer, and the learned Reference Court has committed grievous error in relying on Ex.A1 for enhancement of the market value. He also contends that in Land Acquisition matters the Court is required to fix just and reasonable compensation, whereas in the present case, the Reference Court enhanced the Market Value of the structures by 150% over and above Market Value fixed by the LAO, without assigning any reasons and therefore, the said fixation warrants interference by the Appellate Court.

7) The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that though the LAO fixed the market value of the structures on the basis of estimates prepared by Engineering Wing of Irrigation and Power Department, the same were not filed along with the Award copy (Ex.B1). He submits that the said estimates are very much essential for arriving at just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the same are filed as additional evidence vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 and urges for receiving the same. He also contends that a bare perusal of Ex.A1 would disclose the irregularities / mischief committed by the private Engineer (PW2) in preparing the estimates. In the light of the additional evidence / material which is sought to be taken on record, and as the enhancement of the market value by the learned Reference Court by 150% per square meter over and above the market value f