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 appellants – claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.09 of 2002 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli (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 on the requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Super Thermal Power Station, Ramagundam Division to acquire the lands in survey Nos.408 and 265 of Medipalli village for the purpose of construction of temporary colony for the employees of Super Thermal Power Project, Ramagundam, the Land Acquisition Officer has issued a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 11.07.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer took advance possession of the land on 25.11.1978 by invoking urgency provision. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.2,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.2,500/- per acre for dry-cum-wet lands.

Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

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

“1. Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired is proper?

2. What statutory benefits can be granted?”

5. Before the reference Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.16,800/- per acre, apart from statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

6. Heard the submissions of Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the reference Court has awarded very meager compensation against the claim of the petitioners though they are seeking Rs.80,000/- per acre for wet-cum-dry lands. He further submitted that the reference Court ought not to have deducted 1/3rd of the amount for fixing the compensation for the land acquired on the ground of small extents. He further submitted that when there are no comparable statistics, the Court can rely upon sale with regard to small extents but which was not followed by the reference Court. He further submitted that escalation of price by 10% every year also was not considered by the reference Court and that 12% of the additional market value was also not considered by the reference Court, he therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

8. Learned respondents counsel has submitted that the reference Court has correctly granted the compensation and that there is no need to interfere with the order of the reference Court. In fact the claimants were awarded more compensation than what they are entitled to and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. 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 order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. to what relief? 10. POINT NO.1:

a) Ex.A1 is relied upon by the claimants. A perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that claimant No.1 sold an extent of Ac.0-18 guntas of land in survey No.265 for Rs.9,500/- which would come upto Rs.21,000/- per acre. PW2 is the attestor of Ex.A1. The sale transaction under Ex.A1 is in survey No.265, which falls in the same survey number under which the present acquisition has taken place, therefore, the land under Ex.A1 is held to be similar in nature compared to the