JUDGMENT

: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy

This Appeal, filed by the APSRTC (presently TGSRTC) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.07.2002 passed in O.P. No. 40 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Suryapet (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court), whereby the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired land.

I. BRIEF FACTS

2. The lands situated in Survey No. 787 to an extent of Ac. 1.17 guntas of wet land of Claimant No.1, Survey No. 789 to an extent of Ac. 1.07½ guntas and Ac. 1.07½ guntas of Claimant No.2 and 3 situated in Kodad Mandal headquarters, were acquired for the purpose of construction of bus depot at Mandal Headquarters. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 03.02.1987.

3. The LAO passed an award dated 25.05.1990 fixing the market value of acquired lands at Rs. 33,333/- per acre for wet land of Claimant No.1 and Rs. 28,888/- per acre for the dry Bagayath land of Claimant No.2 and 3. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court.

II. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT:

4. The following Point for consideration was framed for determination by the Reference Court:

1) Whether the Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not just and proper and if so, the same needs to be enhanced and if so at what relief?

2) To what result?

III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.A1 to A9, which included exemplar sale deeds relating to the adjacent lands. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. B1 to B6 were marked.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Reference Court observed that the acquired land, though classified as agricultural, possessed substantial non-agricultural and commercial potential owing to its strategic location abutting National Highway No.9, immediate proximity to the RTC Bus Stand and Bus Depot, and the presence of educational institutions, government offices, markets, industries, and dense residential developments in and around Kodad Town. It was further observed that the land could not be valued merely as wet or dry agricultural land and that its urban character and building potential had to be taken into consideration while determining the market value.

7. The Reference Court also observed that the sale transactions relied upon by the claimants under Exs.A4 to A7 were genuine and comparable, and could be used as guiding factors to ascertain the prevailing market value, whereas the sale deeds marked under Exs.B2 to B5 by the respondents were not comparable due to lack of proximity and similarity. Taking into account the escalation trend reflected in the documents of the claimants’ and the report of Advocate Commissioner, the Reference Court fixed the market value of acquired land at Rs. 141.12/- per square yard (i.e., Rs. 5,57,568/- per acre) with statutory benefits, by allowing a deduction at a rate of 20% towards developmental charges, as on the date of notification.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2002 passed by the Reference Court, the APSRTC has preferred the present Appeal.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

9. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the appellant contends that the judgment and decree of the Reference Court are contrary to law and the evidence on record. The Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation to Rs.141.12/- per square yard (i.e., Rs. 5,57,568/- per acre) for the lands in Sy.No.787 and Sy.No.789, despite the fact that the compensation awarded by the LAO was based on similar sale exemplars. It is further contended that having noticed th