HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAAS.No.533 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated

28.07.2005 passed in O.P.No.62 of 1995 by the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, the present Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Referring Officer.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. It is the case of the appellant that the land to an extent of Ac.25.09 guntas situated at Mortad Village, Mortad Mandal, was acquired from the respondents for excavation of feeder channel in pursuance of the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer has Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre and in respect of category-II, awarded an amount of Rs.13,000/- per acre and accordingly, passed an Award on 26.09.1994. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the case to the Reference Court and the same was numbered as O.P.No.62 of 1995. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant, the Reference Court vide Judgment 28.07.2005 has enhanced the compensation to Rs.75,000/- per acre for the total extent of the land. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant had contended that the Land Acquisition Officer relying on Ex.A1-sale deed, dated 01.02.1994 and awarded the compensation. But this aspect was not properly appreciated by the Reference Court and the Reference Court again enhanced the compensation for the total extent of the land by relying on Ex.A1. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2005 passed by the Reference Court in O.P.No.62 of 1995.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the Reference Court has relied upon Ex.A1-sale deed, dated 01.02.1994, which is prior to issuance of 4 (1) notification and rightly enhanced the compensation. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that as Ex.A1-sale deed dated 01.02.1994 was issued three months prior to issuance of Section 4(1) notification, the Reference Court was justified in relying on Ex.A.1-sale deed, and enhancing the compensation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court.

7. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 15.07.2025

rkk