THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY L.A.A.S. No. 567 of 2008 and A.S.No.1581 of 2001

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

These two Appeals, which are in the nature of cross appeals, arise out of a common order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”) in O.P. No. 9 of 1992. Since the issues involved in these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), are substantially common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired lands, thereby giving rise to the present appeals at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer & RDO, Peddapalli.

3. L.A.A.S. No. 567 of 2008 is preferred by the claimants whereas A.S. No. 1581 of 2001 is preferred by the Singareni Colllieries Co. Ltd., (SCCL) which is a beneficiary. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

4. The Land to an extent of Ac.37-15 gts (Ac. 22-01 gts of dry land and Ac. 15-14 gts of wet land) situated at Jangoan Village of Peddapalli Taluq of Karimnagar District were acquired for the purpose of depillaring of 5-A incline mine by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani.

II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD:

5. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 14.2.1984. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award no. 6/84 dated 29.11.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 9 of 1992 before the Reference Court.

III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE REFERENCE COURT:

6. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether the award No.6/84, dt. 29.11.1984 passed by the Land Acquisition officer is not reasonable and adequate?

(ii) whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced the compensation, if so, at what rate?

IV. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

7. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A4, which comprised exemplar sale deeds pertaining to adjacent lands.

8. On behalf of the respondents before the Reference Court, the Deputy Tahsildar in the office of LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as RW1 and RW2 was executed on behalf of Respondent No.2 (SCCCL) while Exs. B1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

9. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence adduced, found that the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 5, documentary evidence under Exs. A-1 and A-2, and the award marked as Ex. B-1, has observed that the acquired lands were of high potential value; the claimants had established that the lands being converted into non- agricultural plots suitable for house sites, were within the municipal limits, and formed part of an industrial belt housing establishments such as the Fertilizer Corporation of India (F.C.I).

10. The Reference Court noted that the sale deeds i.e. Exs. A-1 to A-3 reflected prices of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.1,06,000/-, and Rs.1,20,000/- per acre respectively, and accordingly found them relevant and reliable for assessing the proper market value.

11. The Reference Court adopted the lowest sale value of Rs.60,000/- per acre shown in Ex. A-1 as the basis for enhancement. Keeping in view the public purpose of the acquisition, a deduction of 40% was made, thereby fixing the market value at Rs.36,000/- per acre as reasonable and just.

12. Consequently, the Reference was partly allowed with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensat