HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Appeal Suit No.2566 of 2000 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 appellants - claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.04.2000 passed in O.P.No.09 of 1992 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahaboobnagar (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 Acquisition Officer (LAO) has acquired the land to an extent of 272¼ Sq.yards and a well within the said land in survey No.1032 for water supply to the new gunj area of Mahaboobnagar village. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 01.02.1979. After due enquiry, the LAO has passed an award granting compensation of Rs.2,178/- as land value and Rs.4,247/- towards the value of well, apart from awarding the statutory benefits. 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 Senior Civil Judge at Mahaboobnagar.

4. The contention of the claimants is that their lands situated in Survey No.1032 at Mahaboobnagar town are in a well developed area and that there is a big well in the said survey number which supplies water to the land to an extent of Ac.12-13 guntas. Their land is acquired for a proposed construction of water tank and other structures for supply of water to the new gunj locality and thus, their land along with the well was acquired for the said purpose and that the value fixed by the LAO is very low i.e. Rs.8/- per square yard ignoring the rate of Rs.15/- fixed by the Registration Department. It is their contention that their acquired land is situated near the Collector’s residence and near to the Mahaboobnagar Market and thus, it would fetch around Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per square yard. The LAO has not filed any reply statement.

5. Based on the averments, the reference Court has framed the following points for consideration:

“1) Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land as claimed by them?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation for the well acquired as claimed by them?

3) To what relief?”

6. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of the respondent, none were examined and no evidence was adduced. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

7. Heard the submissions of Ms.K.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

8. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the claimants are poor farmers and that their land was acquired for construction of water tank and that the land was in a well developed area but the LAO has fixed a very low market value and hence, they sought for enhancement but the reference Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously dismissed their claim. She therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

9. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the LAO has given a very reasoned order and thus, it was confirmed by the reference Court, he therefore, prayed to uphold the same.

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

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief?

11. POINT NO.1:

a) The contention of the claimants is that their lands would fetch around Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per Sq.yard