MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER Vs. K.NEERAJA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 05.06.2002, in O.P.No.32 of 1994, passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial, whereby, the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent-land loser from Rs.10,021/- per acre to Rs.25,000/- per acre for the land located in Yamapur village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Karimnagar District.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 23.01.1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), the Government had proposed to acquire lands in Yamapur village, for the purpose of providing house sites to the Scheduled Caste and other Weaker Sections of Yamapur village. While determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) relied upon sale documents prevailed in that area immediately preceding three years from the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification. By relying on the document Nos.2315/1989, dated 28.12.1989, and No.430/1991, dated 13.06.1991, the LAO fixed the market value of the land of the land loser i.e., Acs.2-00 guntas in Yamapur village, at Rs.10,021/- per acre. After following the procedure under the Act, the LAO passed the award on 30.11.1993.

(3.) Since the land loser, the respondent, was aggrieved by the award dated 30.11.1993, she approached the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation. According to her, she was entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.80,000/- per acre. In order to buttress her claim, she relied on a certified copy of sale deed dated 23.01.1990 (Ex. A.1). Under Ex. A.1, an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas of land situated at Thimmapur village, which is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the land under acquisition, was sold at a sale consideration of Rs.23,800/- per acre. She further examined two witnesses, and submitted one document. After going through the evidence produced by both the parties, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.