IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, affirming that the Reference Court properly evaluated the evidence and did not err in its decision.

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

1. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and 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 claimants challenging the order and decree dated 18.08.2009 passed in O.P. No. 73 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the lands total admeasuring Acs. 11.22 guntas belonging to the appellants-claimants situated at Dharoor Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (presently situated in Gadwal-Jogulamba District, after reorganization of the Districts) were acquired for the purpose of laying of road from Gadwal to Raichur; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette on 12.01.1978 and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award No. 9 of 1979, dated 26.04.1979, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.900/- per acre for group ‘A’ category lands and @ Rs.600/- per acre for group ‘B’ category lands.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted in the Award, the appellants/ claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P. No. 73 of 2005 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the said O.P. thereby confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired lands, vide Award No. 9 of 1979, dated 26.04.1979. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14 and the oral evidence through PWs. 1 to 7 in right perspective; that the Reference Court failed to consider the potential value of the acquired lands and thereby, committed illegality in coming to a conclusion that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable and therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court on proper appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, has rightly answered the Reference against the appellants-claimants and therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court.

9. Before the Reference Court, to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands, the appellants-claimants have examined PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked as many as 14 documents, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14.

10. The market value of the land can be determined based on the factors like its location, i.e. whether it is in developed or undeveloped area, its fertility, its potentiality, the area of land acquired i.e. whether it is big chunk or a small plot, its advantages and disadvantages, etc.

11. By adverting to the above said factors and by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the appellants-claimants, viz. Exs.A-1 to A-14, this Court has to examine whether the Reference Court committed any error in dismissing the Reference made by the appellants herein.

12. This Court has meticulously perused the evidence adduced by both the parties before the Reference Court and has also given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties in this Appeal.

13. A perusal of the evidence on record discloses that Ex.A-1 is the to