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, Miryalguda, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.03.2002 passed in O.P.No.116 of 2000 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda (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 to an extent of Ac.05-09 guntas in survey No.425 of Huzurnagar village was acquired for providing house sites to the poor inhabitants of Madirenigudem H/o.Huzurnagar village. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 10.03.1993. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.28,200/- 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, Miryalguda.

4. The case of the claimants is that there are 50 rice mills, oil mills, dal mills, stone crushing mills and several cement factories in the vicinity of acquired lands and that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to take into account all these factors while fixing the market value and has awarded a meager amount.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed a counter before the reference Court denying the averments of the claimants and stated that after due enquiry he has awarded the said amount which is reasonable and that the claim needs to be rejected.

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

“1. Whether the market value awarded by the L.A.O. in the award under reference represents the correct market value of the land as on the date of 4(1)

notification?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Lao? If so, to what rate?”

7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs 1 & 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondent, Ex.C1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has awarded a compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre, in addition to the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has enhanced the compensation which is contrary to law and that the exhibits filed by the claimants cannot be relied upon and that the said house plots covered under the documents are in Huzurnagar town, hence, the same cannot be considered. He further argued that except these documents, the claimants failed to place any other evidence on record, and that the reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation. He further argued that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered 543 sale transactions and fixed the market value, hence, the appeal may be allowed.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the reference Court has passed a well reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the same, he therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

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) PW1 has reiterated the contents of his claim petition before the reference Court in his evidence. The evidence of PW2 reveals that he had five acres of land in survey No.292 and 301 of Huzurnagar village, which is very near to the acquired lands and that he p