THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT. No. 289 of 2016 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 decree dated 01.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal (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, not being satisfied with the award given, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal. The claimants herein are the appellants claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, and the Special Deputy Collector is the respondent and referring officer in this appeal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The lands situated in survey numbers 81, 82, 83, 84/61, 84/A, 84/A2, 93/A, 93/A2, 93/A3, 94AA, 144, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, and 143 admeasuring Ac. 40.07 guntas situated at Bondrath Village, Tanoor Mandal, Adilabad District were acquired by the Government for the public purpose of formation of a new silt arresting tank across a local stream near the village.

II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD:

4. The draft notification and draft declaration were approved by the competent authority and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 4.2.2003 and 5.2.2003 respectively. Possession of the land was taken on

4.8.1998 by the irrigation authorities.

5. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 23.09.2003, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.30,000/- 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. 8 of

2004 before the Reference Court.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the market value of the lands at Rs.30,000/- per acre and passed the award granting compensation accordingly along with statutory benefits.

7. The Reference Court after enquiry enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,000/- per acre after deducting 30% towards development charges as per precedents and allowed solatium, interest, and additional market value under the Act.

8. Being aggrieved with the quantum and deductions, the present appeal has been preferred.

III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE REFERENCE COURT:

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

(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants needs any enhancement, if so, what would be just and reasonable compensation?

(ii) To what relief?

IV. EVIDENCE ON RECORD

10. Usually claimants are examined as “PWs” and the documents on behalf of the claimants are marked under ‘A’ series, and whereas the witnesses on behalf of the LAO/Referring Officer are marked as “RWs” and the documentary evidence on behalf of the LAO/Referring Officer is marked under ‘B’ series. However, in the instant case, the LAO was examined as PW1 and certified copy of the Award passed by LAO was marked as Ex.A1. Further, the claimant No.11 was examined as RW1 and on his behalf, RW2 was also examined and certified copy of registered sale deed, which shows the sale of one acre of land adjacent to the acquired property at the price of Rs.60,000/- per acre, was marked as Ex.B1. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the witnesses and documents as they were referred to before the Reference Court are referred in the same manner in this Appeal.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

12. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the LAO considered sales from March 2000 to May 2002 in the award proceedings whereas failed to consider Ex. B-1 i.e. the sale deed dated 20.07.1998, which was prior to the notification as well as date of possession.

13. The