THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No. 1787 of 2002 Date: 12.03.2026.

Between:

Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Huzurabad. … Appellant And B. Mallaiah and others … Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy This Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the Order and Decree dated 22.08.1988 passed in O.P. No. 157 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”).

2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired lands. The LAO had fixed the market value at Rs.3,100/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.4,200/- per acre for wet lands, however, the Reference Court enhanced the said values to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively.

Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO, Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzurabad.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The lands admeasuring Ac.33.25 guntas situated at Bheemaram and Palvelpula Villages of Warangal District, were acquired by the government for the purpose of excavation of Kakatiya Main Canal beyond the Lower Maniar Dam.

II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD:

4. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 13.03.1979. Thereafter, an award enquiry was conducted by the LAO in accordance with law. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 20.03.1980, fixing a total compensation of Rs. 1,57,429.31 paise. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 157 of 1987 before the Reference Court.

III. POINT BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT:

5. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following Point for determination:

“Whether the compensation fixed by the Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer is reasonable? If not, what, would be the reasonable compensation?

IV. EVIDENCE:

6. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent-State, RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B2 were marked.

V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

7. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.3,100/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.4,200/- per acre for wet lands was inadequate. While the Court found that the claimants had not produced satisfactory and reliable evidence to justify their claim for compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre or Rs.15/- per square yard, it observed that the Land Acquisition Officer had also failed to properly consider certain registered sale deeds of the years 1976 to 1978 reflecting higher market values in the vicinity. The Court rejected the exaggerated claims regarding valuation of wells and tamarind trees, holding that the compensation awarded for the same was reasonable.

8. The Reference Court further taking into account the location of the lands near Bheemaram and Palvelpula Villages, proximity to Kakatiya University and developing areas, and comparable sale instances, has determined the reasonable market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.15,000/- per acre for wet lands. Accordingly, the award was modified to that extent, granting solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation and interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter till payment, while dismissing the remaining claims. 9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by the Reference Court, the Referring Officer has preferred the present Appeal.

VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

A) Contentions of the Appellant/ (State/LAO):

10. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on