HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.56 of 2019 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, RDO, Nalgonda, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.08.2017 passed in LAOP No.67 OF 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Government has acquired 3090 Sq.yards at Cherlapally village for forming bypass road from Narketpalli to Addanki. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,400/- per acre, apart from the other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

4. The case of the claimants is that their lands would fetch more than Rs.2,000/- per sq.yard as the prevailing market value rate is at Rs.2,000/- per square yard in the locality and that their land has high potential for development, that it is abutting the road leading from Nalgonda to Hyderabad. Their land is suitable for house sites and there is heavy demand for land for establishing industries. It is their further case that a housing colony is also situated by the side of acquired land and hence, they sought for enhancement of compensation.

5. The Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation at the rate claimed in the statement?”

6. At the time of trial, the claim petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1, P2 and X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.100/- per square yard, apart from the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the LAO has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has enhanced the compensation without there being any basis. He further argued that the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land, which is 30 times more than that is granted by the LAO and the same is highly excessive. He further contended that the sale deeds i.e. Exs.P1 and P2 are not at all comparable to the land acquired either in potentiality or extent, therefore, he prayed to set aside the same.

10. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the lands of the claimants would fetch more in the locality and that their land has high potential for development and that it is abutting the road leading from Nalgonda to Hyderabad. He further argued that the land is suitable for house sites and there is heavy demand for land for establishing industries and hence, they sought for enhancement of compensation. He further argued that the reference Court failed to see that in survey No.84 the land was acquired for the same purpose and it was fixed at Rs.300/- per square yard but the reference Court has failed to award the same.

11. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1:

a) The contention of the appellant is that the reference Court has enhanced the compensation by thirty times without any basis.

b) It is the grieva