HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the respondents-

claimants.

2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity ‘the Act’), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.04.2017 passed in O.P.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”).

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Hanamkonda, the lands admeasuring Acs.15.28 ½ guntas situated in Seerole Village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District, belonging to the respondents-claimants were acquired for the purpose of excavation of minor canals 9-Respondent, 4R, 21R of DBM 48 from K.M. 3.000 to 10.000; that Draft notification under Section 4(1) and that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in the A.P. Gazette on 19.07.2002 and 20.07.2002, respectively; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.3/2003-04, dated 31.07.2000, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.30,000/- per acre.

4. The respondents/claimants received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to competent civil Court and numbered as O.P.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.R-1-Award and Ex.R-2-Award proceedings were marked.

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.67,500/- per acre, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. Aggrieved the said enhancement, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that without any basis whatsoever, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court seems to be sympathized on the claimants to be small farmers and based on that ground alone, it has doubled the market value of the subject acquired lands as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the impugned order is passed by the Reference Court without judicial application of mind and further, the Reference Court, having held that Ex.P-1-sale deed pertains to post- notification period and hence, the same cannot be considered, erred in relying upon the very same sale deed and enhancing the market value of the acquired lands and that therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this Appeal setting aside the impugned order of the Reference Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that taking into account the potentiality of the subject acquired lands and further, the admission of the Land Acquisition Officer as R.W-1 that some of the lands were severed due to formation of canal, thereby making remaining part of land uncultivable and also the fact that the claimants are all small farmers, who eke out their livelihood as agricultural labourers, has rightly enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands and the enhancement made by the Reference Court is fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.

9. In support of their claim for enhancement of ma