HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.NOs.13 AND 674 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.11.2008 passed in O.P.No.128 of 1992 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the reference Court’).

2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same order and decree passed by the reference Court, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration were published in the Gazette on 23.04.1981. The draft declaration got lapsed for want of Urban Land Clearance, no award could be passed within the statutory period, Hence, APIIC Limited has issued a fresh requisition on 01.09.1998. Based on which a fresh draft notification and declaration were published on 03.10.1990 and 25.10.1990 respectively, in respect of acquired lands to an extent of Ac.11.18 guntas in survey No.266 and Ac.16.16 guntas in survey No.280 at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for laying approach road for industrial development area at Jeedimetla. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award @ Rs.70/- per square yard for survey No.266 and Rs.75/- per square yard for survey No.280. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

5. The case of the claimants before the reference Court was that the land that is acquired is near to the city of Hyderabad and is surrounded by the industrial estates and residential localities and that there are several prominent industries near the acquired land. The lands have high potentiality for building purposes and that their lands would fetch not less than Rs.500/- per square yard.

6. The Special Deputy Collector has filed his counter contending that the sales statistics were called from the sub-registrar office and that after due enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award and that it does not suffer from any infirmity. That there is no development as put forth by the claimants and that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer holds good.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the reference Court has framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not reasonable and adequate?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get the enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate?

3. To what relief?”

8. Before the reference Court, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has awarded Rs.170/- per square yard, apart from granting the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred LAAS No.13 of 2010, while the claimants have preferred LAAS No.674 of 2010.

10. Heard the submissions of learned Advocate General appearing for the Special Deputy Collector and M/s.Chandrasen Law Offices, learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

11. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation and that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just compensation and that the acquired lands do not fetch such a high value as alleged by the claimants. He further submitted that the claimants have initially claimed Rs.200/- per square yard be