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 A.P.Genco Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Engineer (O&M), Kakatiya Thermal Power Project, Chelpur Village, Warangal District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.P.No.37 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Manthani (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 belonging to the claimants situated at Kapuram Village, Malhar Mandal of Karimnagar District was acquired by the AP Genco for extraction of coal for power generation. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 13.06.2008. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.1,85,714/- 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 Manthani.

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

“1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer has granted reasonable, and adequate compensation to the acquired lands or not?

2. Whether claimants are entitled for redetermination of compensation of market value of the lands?

3. To what relief?”

5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has awarded a compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the A.P.Genco, has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 18 and 20 to 27.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.5 Lakhs per acre and that the reference Court has erred in not considering the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in proper perspective and that the reference Court has failed in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence properly. He further argued that in respect of other lands acquired in pursuance of the same notification compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- was paid per acre but the reference Court failed to appreciate the said fact and has awarded an excess amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in this case. He further argued that Exs.A2 to A4 cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. He further argued that the total land that was acquired in the present notification is Ac.227-35 ½ gts., out of which Ac.186.31 guntas were the patta lands while the remaining was government land and that negotiations were held with the land owners by a Committee and that the farmers agreed for Rs.3,80,000/- per acre. He therefore submitted that the order and decree of the reference Court cannot be sustained and thus, have to be set aside.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the reference Court has considered all the aspects and has fairly granted the compensation to the claimants and that there is no need to interfere with the same.

10. 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? 11. POINT NO.1:

a) PW1 is the claimant No.2. In his evidence, it is