THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No. 3266 of 2000

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.08.1999 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 240 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”).

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. 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 in Sy. Nos. 448, 450/B, 451, 452 and 453 to an extent of Ac.8-39 gts of dry 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. 17, dated 2.09.1985, 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. 240 of 1987 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.17, dt. 2.09.1985 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 claimant examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A3, which comprised exemplar sale deeds pertaining to adjacent lands.

8. On behalf of the respondent before the Reference Court RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 and 2 were marked. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

9. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence adduced, found that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 shows that the value of lands in the vicinity ranges from Rs.60,000/- per acre to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre in village Jangaon, indicating that the acquired lands have high potential and market value. The Reference Court finds the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as credible and reliable.

10. The Reference Court held that the contention of the respondent that the sale deeds were fabricated to claim higher compensation is not sustainable as the LAO himself admitted that the lands near the acquired property range between Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Hence, the sale deeds i.e., Exs.A1 to A3, of lands in close proximity to the acquired lands, can be relied upon to determine market value.

11. The Reference Court upon considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, Exs.A1 to A3, and Ex. B1, finds that the acquired lands are valuable, situated within municipal limits, in an industrial belt, and suitable for non-agricultural purposes.

12. Consequently, the Reference was partly allowed with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, along with 30% solatium, 12% additional amount from the date of notification till award, and interest at 9% per annum for one year and

15% per annum thereafter until payment or deposit.

13. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the Reference Court, respondent No.2 preferred the present Appeal.

VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

A) Contentions of the Appellant/ Respondent No.2:

14. The appellant/respondent No.2 has cont