HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramagundam, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in O.P.No.137 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’).

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject lands to an extent of Acs.11.06 guntas situated in the limits of Bhoopathipur Village and an extent of Acs.4.21 guntas situated in the limits of Dubbapet Village, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of laying of Pipe line under Moulana Abdul Kalam Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project (Godavari); that the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 15.10.2009; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, dated 04.01.2011, granting compensation @ Rs.1,30,000/- per acre, along with solatium and other statutory benefits.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.137 of 2012 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 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, treated both the categories of wet and dry lands as one category and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre from Rs.1,30,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed.

7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly referred to and analyzed the sale statistics pertaining to three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification for fixing the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.A-1 which pertains to land situated far away from the acquired lands while determining the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court erred in observing that the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation based upon irrelevant documents, when the Land Acquisition Officer has, after due enquiry and inspection of the sale statistics of Bhoopathipur and Dubbapet Villages, has rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands.

8. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Reference Court ought not have enhanced the compensation for the pipe lines and open wells existing in the acquired lands basing on Exs.A-3 to A-4, which were not proved by the respondents-

claimants and ultimately, he prayed to allow this Appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate with the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into consideration the sale transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2, rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands. He further contended that the compensation granted by the Reference Court towards pipe lines and open wells existing in the acquired lands is fair and reasonable and therefore, the impugned order needs n