THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA LAAS. No.256 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2007 passed in LAOP.No.128 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahbubnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').

2. The Appellants herein are Claimants in the underlying OP, filed under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the Respondents and perused the record.

4. The case of appellants is that the Tahsildar of Mahbubnagar initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land of the appellants to an extent of Ac. 3-25 cents (equivalent to Ac. 3-10 Guntas) dry Patta land situated in Sy. No. 259-A, within the revenue limits of Amistapur village, Bhootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District for the purpose of allotting houses to persons belonging to the Backward Classes. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and published on 15.02.1982, and a Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13.04.1998. After conducting enquiry and following the procedure prescribed under the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award dated 20.11.1991 fixing the compensation at a rate of Rs. 2,500/- per acre.

5. The appellants/claimants contend that they received the compensation on 21.05.1992, granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.128 of 1992 on the file of the Reference Court. The Reference Court had dismissed the said petition.

6. The appellants contend that the Land Acquisition officer failed to consider the development potential of the acquired land as Amistapur village is adjacent to Mahbubnagar town, and by the time of acquisition, the urban expansion of Mahbubnagar had already extended up to Amistapur, which has significantly increased the market value of the acquired land.

7. The appellants contend that the acquired land is abutting the Mahbubnagar–Srisailam–Kurnool Road and has prime connectivity. Several infrastructural and institutional facilities were stationed in close proximity to the acquired land, including a power substation, Postgraduate Centre, Sathya Sai Gurukulam, as well as various industrial establishments and seed farms.

8. The appellants contend that the reference court has failed to take note of the fact that the land in Sy. No. 259/A and Sy. No. 260 are abutting with each other and the land in Sy. No. 260 was sold on yard basis prior to the issuance of notification under section 4(1). However, the land acquisition officer failed to consider the sale transaction and did not assign any reason for calculating the compensation on acre basis rather than on yard basis.

9. The appellants contend that the acquired land has become commercially viable and valuable, and there was a demand in the market at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square yard. Despite the demand, the Land Acquisition Officer failed to adopt a yardage- based valuation and instead arbitrarily determined compensation on a per-acre basis, without any justification. In addition, no additional benefits or interest as provided under the Act was awarded.

10. Per contra the respondent contends that award for compensation was passed as per the prevailing market value as on the date of notification u/s. 4 (1) of the Act and they had followed the fair and just procedure for fixing compensation. The respondent further contends that the appellants had not filed any substantial proof or evidence to show their entitlement for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for further enhancement.

11. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ cl