HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO.524 OF 2004 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 appellant – claimant in O.P.No.150 of 1989, aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 25.10.2002 passed in O.P.Nos.146 of 1989, 147 of 1989, 148 of 1989, 150 of 1989, 151 of 1989 and 152 of 1989 by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R.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 Land Acquisition Officer has acquired an extent of Ac.05-06 guntas of land at Karmanghat for formation of inner ring road by the HUDA in survey Nos.7/1, 9 and 10. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 27.04.1983. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation @ Rs.10/- per square yard, out of which, 1/3^rd was deducted and fixed Rs.6.67/- per square yard as the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has made an application under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar.

4. The case of the claimants is that the market value of the land acquired is Rs.200/- per square yard and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and that deducting 1/3rd from the value assessed by him is very unjust and that the land acquired is for the purpose of formation of inner ring road and therefore, the deduction was not proper.

5. The reference Court has framed the following points for determination:

“1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for and if so to what extent?

2. Whether the deduction of 1/3^rd area is just and proper?

3. To what reliefs, if any?”

6. Before the reference Court, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.15/- per square yard but 1/3^rd was deducted by the reference Court for developmental purposes and consequently, it was arrived at Rs.10/- per square yard apart from awarding the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Someswar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the orders of the reference Court are contrary to law and that the reference Court has erred in fixing the compensation @ Rs.10/- per square yard. The reference Court ought to have considered the sale transaction under Ex.A1 under which the land was sold @ Rs.74/- per square yard and that the land under Ex.A1 is in the vicinity of the acquired land. He further submitted that the reference Court ought not to have deducted 1/3^rd of the compensation towards developmental charges, as there is no need for development as already the acquired land is in developed area. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the reference Court by allowing this appeal. 10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the reference Court and that the reference Court has rightly deducted 1/3^rd towards developmental charges and fixed the compensation and therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the deduction of 1/3rd compensation towards developmental charges in the acquired land is improper?

3. Whether the order and decree of the refe