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 Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri J.Vekateshwara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Warangal, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.04.2017 passed in O.P.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’).

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer-I, SRSP, Stages-I & II, Division-3, Thorrur, the subject lands totally admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas in Sy.Nos.471, 474, 41 and 131 situated in the limits of Veeraram Village of Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District, were acquired for excavation of 14L of DBM-60 from KM 0.000 to 7.225 on KC under SRSP, Stage-II; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 04.08.2006; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 05.08.2006; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.E/230/06, dated 13.08.2009, granting compensation @ Rs.50/- per square yard for ID lands and @ Rs.9/- per square yard for dry lands.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.

6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, treated both categories of acquired land, i.e., ID and dry lands, as one category and enhanced the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.330/- per square yard for both categories of land. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court erred in granting compensation for the acquired lands on yardage basis instead of on acreage basis; that the Reference Court erred in treating both the ID and dry lands as one category and fixing the same compensation for both types of lands; that the Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired lands based on Ex.P-7-sale deed and further giving escalation @ 10% per annum and ultimately, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.330/- per square yard, which is highly exorbitant and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate to the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into consideration the sale transaction under Ex.A-7 and rightly giving escalation @ 10% per annum for one year, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.

9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

10. In support of their claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants have got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 before the Reference Court. The