HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.1076 of 2011 and X-Objections No.18411 OF 2011 COMMON 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, Sub-Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.12.2010 passed in O.P.No.58 of 2000 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). X-Objections No.18411 OF 2011 are filed by the claimants.

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 Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaghaznagar sent a proposal for acquisition of lands in Sy.No.90 admeasuring Ac.17-19 cents of Kothapeta village for providing house sites to weaker sections. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 17.02.1996. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.49,000/- per acre and also fixed Rs.2,000/- for one drinking water well and Rs.35,000/- for irrigation well, valued two tiled houses @ Rs.5,000/- each, apart from awarding statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad.

4. The case of the claimants is that the lands in survey Nos.19, 179/1, 50 and 173/1 were sold in the year 1993 which is much earlier to the gazette publication @ Rs.2,43,306/- per acre in survey Nos.50 and 173/1, while the lands in survey Nos.19, 179/1 were sold @ Rs.1,93,600/- per acre and that the acquired land is fertile land which is located in Ward No.14 which is in the heart of Kaghaznagar town having a temple near the locality and that the area is well developed. They further averred that the lands in survey Nos.53 and 54 which are abutting the acquired land were sold out @ Rs.20,400/- for house plot.

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

“Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.49,000/- per acre for acquired land is just and reasonable. If not, what is the just and reasonable market value to be fixed for the acquired land?”

6. At the time of trial, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, PW1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, apart from other statutory benefits and the market value of the drinking water well is fixed @ Rs.10,000/-, agricultural well @ Rs.50,000/- and two tiled houses in the acquired land were valued @ Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the market value from Rs.49,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for drinking water well and from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for irrigation well and from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- towards tiled houses. His contention is that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered all the sales statistics available as on date and after due enquiry has awarded the said amount fixed by him and that the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation relying on the Division Bench judgment in Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Asifabad v. Madhukar Rambhav Bhaskarwar & others1. Except the said judgment, there was no document made available by the claimants and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the cl