HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, L.A.Unit, M.D.Colony, Karimnagar, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.04.2000 passed in O.P.No.07 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the land to an extent of Ac.08-09 guntas situated at Kandugula and Veeranarayanapoor villages was acquired for the purpose of DBM 19 of Kakatiya Canal beyond L.M.D. The draft notification is dated 26.05.1986. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has awarded Rs.4,300/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

4. The case of the claimants is that their land fetches more value than that fixed by the LAO and that their land is in a developed area and has further potentiality for development but the LAO has failed to consider the same and has given a meager amount of compensation i.e. Rs.4,300/- per acre and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation to Rs.50,000/- per acre.

5. The learned Government Pleader has filed counter denying the averments made by the claimants and stated that the LAO has considered all the relevant sale transactions in that locality and that depending on the nature and fertility of the lands, the LAO has fixed the correct market value and hence, it needs no enhancement.

6. The Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?”

7. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre, apart from statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO.

8. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri Mahboob Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that there was no basis for the reference Court to enhance the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre and that the LAO has fixed the market value by taking all the factors into consideration and that the reference Court has not assigned any reasons for enhancing the compensation to that of Rs.30,000/- per acre. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the reference Court.

10. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the reference Court has examined the evidence produced before it and that it has awarded the right amount to the claimants and that the same may be confirmed by this Court, by dismissing the appeal.

11. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1:

a) The contention of the claimants is that their land fetches more value than that awarded by the LAO and in support of their case they have filed Exs.A1 to A5.

b) The claimants have filed sale deed vide document No.1218 of 1985, dated 29.05.1985 under Ex.A1, which is one year prior to the acquisition. Apart from that, they have relied upon the order and decree in O.P.No.116 of 1985 under Ex.A2, the judgment in Appeal No.619 of 1986 arising out of the said OP under Ex.A3, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of order in OP Nos.430 and 435