IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the principle of uniform compensation for acquired lands of similar nature and purpose, emphasizing the need to avoid discrimination in compensation assessments.

JUDGMENT :

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

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

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Nalgonda District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.06.2015 passed in O.P.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that lands admeasuring Acs.4.25 guntas, i.e., an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.124 and an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.125, situated in the limits of Anumula Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, belonging to the respondent-claimant were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of Anumula Village; that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P.Gazette on 20.05.1983; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed an Award, dated 01.09.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.3,900/- per acre.

4. The claimant received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was accordingly referred to the Reference Court and numbered as O.P.No.40 of 2010.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.

6. On appreciation of the material available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.60,000/- per acre from Rs.3,900/- per acre, apart from granting other benefits under the Act to the respondent/ claimant.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Reference Court, the present appeal is filed.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that Ex.A-2-Judgment, dated 27.11.2006, passed by this Court in A.S.No.1065 of 2003, relates to the lands acquired in Halia, whereas, the subject acquired lands are situated in Anumula Village and as such, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation based on Ex.A-2 and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contended that the Reference Court on perusing Ex.A-2 came to a conclusion that the subject acquired lands and the lands covered under Ex.A-2 are nearer to each other and the purpose of acquisition is also similar in both the cases and therefore, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.A-2 and fixed fair and reasonable compensation, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

10. At the outset, it is evident that Exs.A-4 to A-8 are all the sale deeds pertaining to Nidamanoor Village and they were marked as exhibits in O.P.No.46 of 1993 on the file of the Reference Court. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 20.05.1983. The respondent-claimant placed reliance on the sale deeds under Exs.A-4 to A-8 which relate to post- notification, i.e., Exs.A-4 and A-6 are executed in the month of June, 1983 and Exs.A-5, 7 and 8 are executed in the month of July, 1983. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into the said aspect as the same were already considered by the Reference Court, vide Ex.A-1 and further, on appeal, considered by the High Court, vide Ex.A-2.

11. Ex.A-3-common judgment rendered by this Court in A.S.Nos.2687 and 3716 of 2000, dated 12.09.2013, is with regard to fixation of market value of the acquired lands therein situated at Anumula Village pursuant to draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 10.02.1992, whereas in the instant case, the dr