IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation for acquired lands, affirming the reliance on sale deeds and evidence as just and reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

(Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.)

Heard Sri Anurag Rachapally, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the beneficiary of the acquired lands aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.06.2014 passed in LAOP.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’).

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, South Central Railway, Karimnagar, the private patta lands admeasuring Ac.1.11 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.1189 and 1190 of Vempet Village, Metpally Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of new broad gauge single railway line from Jagtial to Errapur (Phase-III); that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 02.01.2012; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 21.01.2012; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 28.02.2012; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.3 of 2012, dated 08.08.2012, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,90,000/- per acre.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to Civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.

6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, passed the impugned order answering the Reference in favour of the claimants and enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,84,000- per acre as against the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.1,90,000/- per acre Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging the said order.

7. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant, which is the beneficiary of the land under acquisition, contended that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Exs.A-1 to A-4, particularly Ex.A-4 without any basis; that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired lands on mere assumptions and presumptions though no cogent material was placed by the claimants and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and the same needs to be set aside by allowing this Appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants contended that Reference Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and rightly assessed the compensation for the acquired land, which is just and reasonable and therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. The contention of learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands. But, as seen from Ex.R-1-Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands and even in the impugned order, the Reference Court has neither dealt with the said aspect nor awarded any compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is, in fact, contrary to record and therefore, merits no consideration.

10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Reference Court has placed reliance mainly on Ex.