HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.3863 of 2004 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, LA Unit, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 06.02.2004 passed in O.P.No.53 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar (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.04-05 guntas situated at Sirsed Village in Jammikunta Mandal of Karimnagar District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of IR of 10R of DEM-16. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 31.07.1990 and in other news papers on 29.11.1990 and 09.11.1990. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has fixed the value at Rs.10,200/- per acre and he has also fixed the value of the lands @Rs.5,500/- per acre for the purpose of awarding interest from the date of possession i.e. 20.10.1985 to the date of notification i.e. 28.11.1990. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

4. The case of the claimants is that the possession of the lands was taken on 20.10.1985, though the notification was issued subsequently. That the true market value of the land under acquisition is actually fetching Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and that the claimants have filed their documents before the LAO but the LAO has not considered the same and they have been getting a yield of Rs.25,000/- per acre after deducting the expenses.

5. The LAO has filed counter stating that the enquiry was conducted and that the LAO has considered the registered sale transactions during the period of three years preceding the acquisition and has adopted the sale item No.35, which is similar in factors and thus, has arrived at a compensation of Rs.10,200/- per acre, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not representing the true market value of the land and whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation?”

7. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 award copy was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,000/- per acre, apart from granting statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, LMD Colony, Karimnagar.

9. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the LAO has granted very reasonable compensation by considering the sales statistics in the said area and that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced any compensation. He further argued that the reference Court ought to have seen that Exs.A1 and A2 marked on behalf of the claimants cannot be relied upon as they do not pertain to the lands in the vicinity of acquisition. He further argued that the reference Court ought to have seen that the lands covered in OP No. 29 of 1996 granting a compensation of Rs.25,000/- per acre are totally different and that cannot be equated with the lands under present acquisition. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and confirm the award of the LAO.

11. The learned responden