HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the respondents-

claimants.

2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity ‘the Act’), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.10.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.No.794 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”).

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that lands totally admeasuring Acs.43.00 guntas situated in different Survey numbers of Tallasankeesa and Upparigudem Villages, Kuravi Mandal, Warangal District, belonging to the respondents-claimants were acquired for the purpose of excavation of canal 4R-21R of DBM-48 from KM 5-000 to 9-000; that Draft notification under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in the A.P. Gazette on 30.07.1998 and 31.07.1998, respectively; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, dated 20.07.1999, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.24,000/- per acre.

4. The respondents/claimants received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to competent civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.794 of 2000 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined, however, the evidence of R.W-1 was eschewed, and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.24,000/- per acre to Rs.80,000/- per acre, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. Aggrieved the said enhancement, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court erred in relying upon Ex.A-2-sale deed for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. He further contended that the Reference Court ought to have seen that Exs.A-3 to A-6 are copies of judgments and decrees passed in O.P.Nos.51 of 1999 and 795 of 2000 by the civil Courts, on the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officers concerned, which have coequal jurisdiction as that of the Reference Court and therefore, the Reference Court erred in taking them into consideration for fixation of market value of the subject acquired lands; and as such, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands nearly three times over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this Appeal, either by totally setting aside the impugned order of the Reference Court or by considerably reducing the market value fixed by the Reference Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has rightly taken into account Ex.A-2-sale deed and also further taking into consideration Ex.A-3 to A-6, fixed the market value of the acquired lands, which is just, fair and reasonable and as such, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.

9. Perusal of record reveals that in the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has observed that there are only four sales in Upparigudem Village and there are no sale deeds of Tallasankeesa Village during the relevant period of three years