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, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2016 passed in L.A.O.P.No.598 of 2015 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (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 Government has acquired the land to an extent of 1342 square yards in survey Nos.11 to 17, 23 and 24 of Mahankali village, Maheshwaram Mandal for formation of outer ring road. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25.03.2006. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.350/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of II Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar.

4. The case of the claimant before the reference Court is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in survey Nos.11 to 17, 23 and 24 admeasuring Ac.0-17 guntas i.e. 2057 square yards, situated at Mahankali Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that the Government has acquired the entire land but the award was passed for 1,342 square yards by fixing a market value @ Rs.350/- per square yard which is very low.

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

“1. Whether the market value fixed @ Rs.350/- per square yards is in accordance with law or it is liable to be set aside?

2. If the market value as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not correct, what is the reasonable market value and what are the benefits claimant is entitled to?”

6. Before the Reference Court, the claimant got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/- per square yard to an extent of 1342 square yards, in addition to the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard Smt.D.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the reference Court has granted exorbitant amounts towards compensation. She further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed a reasonable compensation and that the reference Court ought not to have interfered with the same and that the additional market value of 12% per annum also is erroneously awarded and he further submitted that the exhibits filed by the claimant should not have been relied upon by the reference Court as they reflect exaggerated figure, therefore, he prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the reference Court by allowing this appeal.

10. The learned respondent counsel has submitted that the reference Court has rightly considered the material available on record and has granted compensation to the claimant and that there is no need to interfere with the said award.

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

1. Whether the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1:

a) The case of PW1 is that his land is situated at Mahankali village, Maheshwaram Mandal, which is in a phase of fast development with all facilities like transport, electricity and that it is surrounded by commercial and residential