HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.636 of 2011 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 appellants – claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.12.2009 passed in O.P.No.878 of 2007 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge at Khammam (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 based on the requisition made by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, General Manager, Kothagudem Area, the lands to an extent of Ac.01-30 guntas in survey No.165/1/AI Dry and an extent of Ac.02-13 guntas in survey No.200/AA dry, in all an extent of Ac.04-03 guntas have been acquired. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in newspaper on 17.04.2004 and 18.04.2004. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has awarded Rs.72,000/- per acre including statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18(1) of the Act to the Court of 1^st Additional District Judge, Khammam

4. The case of the claimants is that they are the agriculturists and that due to acquisition, they lost their livelihood and that their lands would fetch much more value as it has high potential for development and that the LAO has awarded very meager amount towards compensation and that their lands are very fertile yielding commercial crops and the lands in the vicinity are sold at higher rates and are suitable for house sites.

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

“Whether the market value fixed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA) IPT & RLYS, Khammam is adequate?”

6. The said OP was taken up along with a batch of claims arising out of the said acquisition. Therefore, a joint trial was held in all these cases.

7. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 11 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.72,000/- per acre to Rs.1,47,600/- per acre and also granted solatium at 30%, additional market value at 12% and interest at 9% per annum from 24.08.2004 till the date of the order, thereafter at 6% per annum, till the date of payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the claimants

9. Heard the submissions of Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the reference Court has failed to consider the sale deed relating to the transactions for a sum of Rs.7,98,600/- in survey Nos.165 and 167, Ex.A6 relates to the said transaction and the vendee of Ex.A6 was also examined as PW10, the reference Court has committed an error in not considering the said evidence on record. That the reference Court failed to observe that the land belonging to the claimants is in a prime locality adjacent to the State Highway leading from Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad and it also situated at a distance of 3 KM from Sathupally town. He further argued that Exs.A7 and A8 reflect the market value to be more than Rs.7 Lakhs per acre which were registered based on a basic value register at SRO Office, Sathupally, but still the same were not considered by the reference Court. He further argued that the interest as per the statute is also not granted from the date on which the possession had been taken.

11. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has given a very reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the sa