HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA 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, Narayanpet, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed in O.P.No.47 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal (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 Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the lands situated at Raikod Village of Narva Mandal for the purpose of construction of new irrigation tank across Ullivagu at Raikod village. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16.09.1993 and the advance possession was taken on 10.12.1986. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,500/- per acre. 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 at Gadwal.

4. The case of the claimants is that their acquired lands are fertile lands and they used to raise commercial crops and earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per acre from irrigated dry lands and that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have fixed the market value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed a reply statement contending that after due enquiry, the said award was passed.

6. The Reference Court has framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation for the acquired lands belonging to them, if so, to what extent?

2. To what relief?”

7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.21,375/- per acre, apart from the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.

9. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 14 and Sri C.B.Siddarth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.15 to 24.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the order and decree of the reference Court is contrary to the facts and law and that the reference Court has failed to consider the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has fairly assessed the compensation at Rs.6,500/- per acre. He further argued that the reference Court has blindly believed the evidence of claimants and has enhanced the compensation by more than 3½ times. He further contended that the reference Court ought not to have granted statutory benefits in contradiction to the statute and that Exs.A1 and A2 were not supposed to be relied upon by the reference Court. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree by allowing this appeal.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation and that the land acquired has high potentiality for development and thus, he prayed to uphold the order and decree of the reference Court.

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1:

a) The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the reference Court has wrongly believed the documents under Exs.A1 and A2. Exs.A1 and A2 are the sale deeds dated 06.10.1986. A perusal of the said sale deeds shows that the sale consideration o