HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Land Acquisition Appeal Suit No.622 of 2017 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2015 (hereinafter will be referred as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal (for short ‘reference court’) in O.P. No.67 of 2011, wherein the market value of the subject land as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.55,000/- per acre to Rs.130.50 paise per square meter.

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

3. Brief Facts: The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the respondents/claimants situated in Nandimalla Village of Atmakur Mandal were acquired by the government for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced families under Priyadarshini Jurala Project. Accordingly an award was passed vide Award No.54/2010 dated 27.12.2010 by fixing the market value of acquired lands at Rs.55,000/- per acre. Having dissatisfied with the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed O.P.No.67 of 2011 to enhance the market value from Rs.55,000/- per acre to Rs.500/- per square meter. The Land Acquisition Officer opposed the claim made by the claimants and prayed to dismiss the said claim. The claimants relied upon oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Officer examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 copy of the award. On considering the rival contentions, the reference court fixed the market value of acquired lands at Rs.130.15 paise per square meter as against the amount of Rs.55,000/- 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

03.08.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P. No.67 of 2011?

7. Point: The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the reference court failed to consider that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 27.05.2009 and that the award, on which the enhancement made by the reference court was based on Award No.45/2006 which was notified on 11.07.2005. Hence, the reference court ought not to have granted enhancement at 10% to cover the time lag between the other award marked as Ex.A4 and the present judgment impugned in the present appeal.

8. It is to be seen that the reference court placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ahasanul Hoda v. Stte of Bihar, AIR 2013 SC 3463 and General Manager ONGC Limited v. Ramesh Bhai Jilvanghai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC745 wherein it was observed that in the absence of other acceptable evidence, cumulative increase of 10 % to 15% per annum on the compensation is permissible. Even in the case on hand, except the oral evidence of Land Acquisition Officer as RW1, no other material is placed

to establish that cumulative increase of 10% per annum on the compensation is not permissible in the instant case.

9. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the reference court erred in enhancing the compensation by more than 10 times purporting the same to be based on the orders marked as Exs.A4 and A5. As can be seen from the impugned order, the reference court placed its reliance on oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5. Exs.A1 and A4 are the certified copies of the orders passed