IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for acquired land must reflect genuine market transactions and account for severance, while emphasizing the need for evidence in claims for additional compensation.

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.06.2007 passed in O.P.No.40 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’).

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a requisition sent by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D (R & B), Nalgonda, vide letter dated 13.10.1988, the subject lands to an extent of Acs.4.22 guntas, which includes an extent of Acs.3.22 guntas of dry lands and an extent of Ac.1.00 of wet lands, situated in Sy.Nos.162, 163, 164, 165, 166 and 85 of Anantaram Village, Nalgonda District, belonging to the appellant/claimant were acquired for construction of Road over Bridge to eliminate three level crossings across Hyderabad-Kazipet broad gauge railway line between Bibinagar and Anantaram Railway crossings; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 22.07.1989; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 07.08.1989; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award vide proceedings No.B/4763/88, dated 02.08.1991, granting compensation @ Rs.6,500/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for wet lands.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant/claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.40 of 1998 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellant/ claimant, P.W-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.

6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Reference Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record, particularly, Exs.A-1 to A-3, erred in confirming the meager compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that initially, the compensation was estimated @ Rs.49,293.14 paise per acre and compensation of Rs.2,11,488/- being 80% of the compensation was paid to the appellant, however, later, the Land Acquisition Officer initiated proceedings for recovery of excess amount of Rs.1,66,458.86 paise; that the Reference Court also grossly erred in not granting any statutory benefits under the Act to the appellant-claimant; and that therefore, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court suffers from illegality and infirmity and prayed to allow this Appeal.

8. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer that the Reference Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and rightly confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Undisputedly, an extent of Acs.4.22 guntas of land, which includes both wet and dry lands, belonging to the appellant-claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Road over Bridge. Even prior to issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, possession of the subject lands was taken on 19.12.1988 invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and a sum of Rs.2,11,488/-, representing 80% of the compensation towards the acquired lands, was paid to the appellant-claimant on 28.6.1989. Thereafter, the proceedings initiated f