Court emphasized the need for uniformity in compensation for similarly situated lands to ensure fairness, allowing for enhanced compensation under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.

1. This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the Order and Decree dated 19.01.1984 passed in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”).

2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) from Rs.1,320/- per acre to Rs.3,500/- in respect of dry lands and from Rs.2,720/- to Rs.5,000/- in respect of wet lands, which were acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam (LMD) Reservoir.

3. Aggrieved by the said enhancement being inadequate, the present Appeal is filed by the Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the claimant/original owner.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The Appellants herein are the legal heirs of the petitioner in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 before the Reference Court by virtue of a succession certificate obtained by them vide O.P.No.394 of 1997. The lands of the petitioner therein (father of the appellants) in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 i.e., the lands situated in Hasanpur Village, Karimangar District, were acquired for the purpose of submergence under L.M.D. Reservoir. The details of the acquired lands are as under:

II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD:

5. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 24.03.1977, followed by issuance of notices under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, after which an award enquiry was conducted.

6. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 15.07.1978 in respect of acquired lands, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.1,320/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.5,000/- for wet lands. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 865 of 1982 before the Reference Court.

III. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT:

7. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following point for consideration for determination:

“Whether there are reasonable grounds for enhancing the compensation granted by the L.A.O”?

IV. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT:

8. To substantiate his claim for higher compensation, the claimant himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 on his behalf and whereas, on behalf of the respondent-State, RW1 was examined and no documents were marked.

V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

9. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the lands of Hasanpur village under acquisition were correctly classified by the LAO as dry and wet single crop lands based on revenue records and personal inspection. There was no dispute regarding such classification. The Court noted that the claimant, who was examined himself as PW1, asserted that the acquired lands were fertile and situated close to Karimnagar town, where he cultivated maize, chillies, and vegetables in the dry lands and two paddy crops in the wet lands, yielding substantial income. However, the claimant did not produce any sale deeds to substantiate his claim regarding the prevailing market value.

10. The Reference Co