GUNDUGONDA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals.

(2.) On the ground that the subject lands were coming within the submergence area of Singoor Irrigation Project, the process to acquire the subject lands in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894'), was set in motion by issuing draft notification and ultimately culminating in passing an Award on 19/2/1990. The subject lands acquired for the said purpose in Jamalpur Village appears to be the hamlet of Itkepally Village which was a Gram Panchayat. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.10,000.00 per acre. Not satisfied with the said determination of market value, the claimants sought for reference under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1894. Their reference was registered as O.P.No.10 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy. The claimants sought for enhancement of compensation by fixing the land value at Rs.30,000.00 per acre for dry lands and Rs.40,000.00 per acre for wet lands, with all statutory benefits flowing there from. In support of their claim for enhancement, the claimants relied upon the judgments rendered in O.P.No.213 of 1995 and O.P.No.229 of 2003, marked as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, order dtd. 19/12/2000 in Appeal No.1213 of 2000 as Ex.A.3 and two sale deeds dtd. 12/1/1987 and 17/1/1987, marked as Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 respectively. They have cited three witnesses to depose on their behalf. On evaluation of the evidence on record, the reference Court did not find merit in the claim to enhance the compensation to Rs.18,500.00 for dry lands and Rs.19,500.00 for wet lands or to Rs.25,000.00 as sought by them, but having found that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is not sufficient, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.15,000.00 per acre, treating the same as just compensation. Not satisfied with the determination of compensation by the reference Court, this appeal is preferred.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellants, the lands acquired are fertile, several commercial crops are raised and yearly yielding per acre was between Rs.6000.00 to Rs.8000.00. These factors ought to have been considered to determine higher compensation. His further contention is that the reference Court has not properly evaluated the evidence brought on record in support of the claimants to award higher compensation. He further submits that the appellants are entitled to revision of market rate to Rs.25,000.00 as reflected in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and all the consequential benefits flowing there from.