THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Land Acquisition Appeal Suit No.10 of 2010 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Appeal is preferred by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2009 (hereinafter will be referred as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘reference court’) in O.P. No.3 of 2005, wherein the market value of the subject land as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.1,45,000/- per square meter.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their status before the reference Court.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case are that the agricultural lands of the respondents/claimants situated in Chittapur Village of Balkonda Mandal were acquired by the Government for the purpose of excavation of II lift of D.3 of Laxmi Canal of S.R.S.P. Project Reservoir. Accordingly an award was passed on 22.09.2003 by fixing the market value of acquired lands at Rs.45,000/- per acre. Having dissatisfied with the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed O.P.No.3 of 2005 seeking to enhance the market value of acquired lands from Rs.45,000/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer opposed the claim made by the claimants. The claimants relied upon oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent, however, a copy of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was marked as Ex.B1. On considering the rival contentions, the reference court fixed the market value of acquired lands at Rs.1,45,000/- per acre as against the market value of Rs.45,000/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order and pass appropriate orders.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the claimants have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order seeking further enhancement of the market value.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether there are any substantial grounds to interfere with the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in O.P. No.3 of 2005?

7. POINT: The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the reference court fixed the land value at Rs.1,45,000/- per acre without any basis. It is further contended that the reference court ought to have seen that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration Ex.A1, which is a settlement in Lok Adalat between claimant of a neighbouring Village and the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of lands acquired for the same purpose.

8. The reference court considered the oral evidence of claimant Nos.1 and 2, who were examined as PWs 1 and 2. The claimants relied upon Exs.A3 to A5 pahanies to establish that the claimants cultivated turmeric, maize, sajja, groundnut, chillies, vegetables and other commercial crops in the acquired lands through bore wells and wells with motor pump sets.

9. As per the contention of the claimants, the land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer in Vannel (b) Village for excavation of flood flow canal and the compensation for those lands was settled between claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer in Lok Adalath held on 22.12.2001 and the rates were fixed in Lok Adalath were accepted by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 23.04.2002, which is marked as Ex.A1.

10. As per the evidence of PW2 coupled with pahanies in respect of land situated in Sy.No.158 of Chittapur the acquired land belonging to PW2 is a single crop wet land. Thus, it is amply clear that the acquired lands belonging to claimants are fertile lands.

11. Ex.A2 is the sale deed executed by one Enugu Linganna