K. Lakshman, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section - 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by claimant No.7 in O.P.No.10 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2006 passed therein.

2. Land admeasuring Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.29 of Burugupally Village of Vikarabad Mandal belonging to the deceased appellant, who is claimant No.7 in the aforesaid OP, was acquired by the Government along with the lands of other claimants for the purpose of doubling of Railway Track. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) was published in the year 1995. Pursuant to the said notification, notice was issued to claimant No.7 under Section - 9 (1) and 10 of the Act, 1894. After conducting necessary enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 26.07.1997 fixing the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimant No.7 and others sought reference under Section - 18 of the Act, 1894, which was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad and numbered as O.P.No.10 of 1999. The said reference in relation to the land to an extent of Acs.28.05 guntas situated at Burugupally Village which includes the land of claimant No.7 also.

3. The case of the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 before the Reference Court is that the actual prevailing market value of the subject land at the relevant time was Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is a dry land. He used to raise dry crops and also sometimes chilli and cotton. The Vikarabad - Tandur PWD road is abutting his land. Therefore, the fixation of the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer is very less.

4. In the aforesaid O.P., on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 6 were examined including the deceased appellant herein as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 in support of their claims, whereas, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer.

5. Heard Mr. G. Raghupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants herein that the subject land is of black cotton and is fertile with good potential value. The said land is situated by the side of PWD Road from Vikarabad to Pargi (Via Naskal) and is very much suitable for Orchards as it has got good water resources. He would further submit that the acquired land fetches the value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. Without considering all the said aspects, Land Acquisition Officer has awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre and the same was confirmed by learned Reference Court. Thus, both of them erred in awarding the said amount. In view of the potentiality of land, the claimants are entitled for compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre.

               i) In support of the same, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decisions in Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010 Supreme (SC) 1552); Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 Supreme (SC) 780).

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-LAO that, the village Burugupally is situated 8 kilometers away from the Vikarabad and there is no development in the said village. The sale transaction covered under Ex.A1 is located abutting the road leading to Pargi from Vikarabad, whereas the acquired lands are situated 2½ kilometers from the road, as such, the compensation fixed by the LAO is just and reasonable.

8. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the following points that arise for consideration:

               (i) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation @ Rs.100/- per square yard or Rs.50,000/- per acre?

               (ii)Whether the order and decree passed by learned Reference Court is correct in accordance with law?

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record.

10. Perusal of record would reveal that Award No.B/1430/1991, dated 26.07.1997 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division is in relation to the extent of Acs.40.11 cents in Survey Nos.2, 8, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 236,237, 238,239, 240, 244, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278 and 292 situated Burugupally Village of Vikarabad Mandal pertaining to 33 claimants. The said extent of land was acquired by the LAO for the purpose of doubling of Railway Track. The said award includes the subject lands i.e., Acs.4.17 cents in Survey No.29 of Burugupally Village. Vide the aforesaid award, the LAO fixed the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre in respect of the subject lands. Dissatisfied with the same, out of 33 claimants, the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 along with 19 claimants having received the compensation amount under protest sought for reference under Section - 18 of the Act, 1894 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.28.05 guntas which includes the subject land.

11. In the said O.P. as stated above, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Among the said witnesses, the deceased appellant herein - claimant No.7 is PW.1. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 12.09.1995; Ex.A2 is the copy of Award in respect of the acquired lands of Yennepally; Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of order in O.P.No.23 of 2004; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of order in O.P. No.76 of 1995; Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the order in O.P. No.17 of 1997; Ex.A6 is the certified copy of award dated 31.07.1995; Ex.A7 is the order in O.P. No.44 of 1995 and Ex.A8 is the certified copy of decree in O.P. No.5 of 1995.

12. Though the order and decree under challenge is in respect of Acs.28.05 guntas, the challenge by the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 is in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.29 of Burugupally Village. Therefore, we are confined to the said extent only in the present appeal.

13. It is the specific case of the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 before the Land Acquisition Officer that his land i.e., subject land is a fertile with good potential value. It has good water resource and is suitable for Orchard. It is situated by the side of PWD Road from Vikarabad to Pargi (Via Naskal). Therefore, he sought to award

compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. The LAO considering all the aspects, fixed the market value of the subject land at Rs.10,000/- per acre. He also awarded 30% solatium and 12% additional market value from 28.10.1995 to 26.07.1997. The LAO also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from 15.12.1989 to 14.12.1990 and @ 15% per annum from 15.12.1990 to 26.07.1997. After deducting income tax under Section 194-A of Income Tax Act of Rs.04,788/-, granted net amount of Rs.1,09,884/- for the entire amount.

14. As stated supra, having received the said amount under protest and having dissatisfied with the said amount, the deceased appellant along with 19 claimants sought to refer the matter under Section - 18 of the Act, 1894.

15. Before the Reference Court, the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 contended that his land is situated by the side of PWD Road linking the National High Way of Bombay to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Bangalore and have got high potential value for its location nearer to the factories and fruit gardens. The acquired land is of black cotton soil and fertile with good potential value.

16. In a reference under Section - 18 of the Act, 1894, the claimant must establish that the compensation awarded by the LAO is inadequate. The claimant has to produce reliable evidence, such as comparable sale deeds of similar lands; expert valuation; approved layout plans; revenue records, evidence of surrounding development. Potential value must be proved by evidence. Market value is determined not merely by the existing agricultural use but also by the potentiality of the land. However, potentiality cannot be presumed merely because the land is near a National Highway. The claimant must prove existence of approved layouts; residential colonies; industries; commercial establishments; educational institutions and availability of roads, electricity and water etc.

17. In support of his claim, the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 was examined as PW.1. He deposed that the actual prevailing market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is a dry land. He used to raise dry crops and also sometimes chilli and cotton. The Vikarabad - Tandur PWD Road is abutting his land. The lands near and around his land were also acquired by the Government for the purpose of doubling of Railway track. The market value fixed by the LAO is very less. Therefore, he is entitled for the market value @ Rs.50,000/- per acre.

               i) PW.1 further deposed that he claimed the market value @ Rs.100/- per square yard and the same was also claimed before the LAO. The land of PW.3 is adjacent to his land. The LAO fixed the market value for the land of PW.3 at Rs.4,500/- per acre, and on reference to the Court vide O.P. No.23 of 1994, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.60/- per square yard vide Ex.A3. The Government also acquired the land in Gangaram and Vikarabad Villages for the same purpose. The LAO fixed the market value for those lands on acreage basis and on reference it was fixed at Rs.130/- per square yard in O.P. No.44 of 1995, vide Ex.A7. As per Ex.A8, which is decree dated 31.12.1997 in O.P. No.5 of 1995, the market value in respect of lands of Gangaram Village was fixed at Rs.75/- per square yard.

               ii) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that the land of PW.3 comes under Yennepally Revenue limits, whereas his lands come under Burugupally Revenue Village limits, but they are abutting. He also admitted that Yennepally Revenue limits come under Vikarabad Municipality and there is a Ward in Vikarabad Municipality for that Yennepally Area. Mahaveer Hospital and a Dental College are also located in Yennepally Revenue limits and number of housing layouts has come up. The lands covered by Exs.A6 and A7 are very adjacent to Railway Station.

18. As stated supra, on behalf of the LAO, RW.1, Senior Assistant in the office of the RDO, Vikarabad, was examined. RW.1 has specifically deposed that Ex.B1 is the award passed by the LAO in respect of the lands covered by O.P. No.10 of 1999, which includes the subject land. The LAO fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- as against the claim of the claimants at Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre. The LAO relied upon the sale transaction in Survey No.6 as it is nearer to the acquired lands and also similar in nature. The distance between the acquired land and Vikarabad is 7 kilometers. All the lands of Burugupally Revenue village are agricultural lands. The claim of the claimants is not reasonable.

               i) During cross examination, RW.1 denied the suggestion that the market value fixed by the LAO is very less and it is not the actual market value.

               ii) During re-examination, RW.1 deposed that there are no layouts, no colleges and hospitals in Burugupally Revenue limits.

19. Having stated by PW.1 that his land is situated by the side of PWD Road linking the National High Way of Bombay to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Bangalore, got high potential value for its location nearer to the factories and fruit gardens, he has not placed any material in the form of evidence to substantiate the same. Moreover, in his evidence, he categorically admitted that there are no layouts, colleges and hospitals in Burugupally Revenue Village limits. This evidence nullifies his claim. Exs.A2 to A8 are no way relevant to the claim of the appellants.

20. Perusal of Exs.A1 to A8 would reveal that Ex.A1 is the copy of award dated 06.06.1994 and the same is in respect of the lands situated in Yennepally Revenue Village. Ex.A3 is also concerned with the lands of Yennepally Village. As already stated above, this Yennepally Revenue Village comes within the Vikarabad Municipality, and one of the Wards in the said Municipality is Yennepally Village. Ex.A4 to 7 are in respect of the lands situated at Vikarabad and Ex.A8 is in respect of the lands situated at Gangaram Village. Therefore, all the said documents relied on by the claimants including the appellants herein are no way helpful to their claim.

21. The LAO fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre, whereas the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 claimed at Rs.100/- per square yard, but failed to produce any comparable transactions/sale deeds; layout plans; evidence of residential or commercial development; evidence that the acquired land abutted a National Highway or major road; evidence of industrial or urban expansion; expert valuation reports. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

22. Learned Reference Court also observed that Exs.A2 to 8 are situated at some other villages i.e., Gangaram, Yennepally and Vikarabad Town and, therefore, it is very difficult to take those awards and orders to fix the market value in the present case. It was also observed that Burugupally is a small village and situated inside of black top road leading from Pargi to Naskal. Further, there is no evidence to show that commercial crops are being raised in those lands prior to the acquisition of lands and that there are construction of houses or any other business activity. Further, the LAO considered the sales statistics of three years preceding to the date of notification and rightly came to the conclusion in fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. Since the deceased appellant - claimant No.7 has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the market value determined by the LAO is inadequate, and there is no evidence establishing the land's potentiality or higher prevailing market value, there is no legal basis for enhancement, an appellate Court ordinarily will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or unsupported by the record. Accordingly, the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation is liable to be dismissed, and the award fixing compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre deserves to be affirmed.

23. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed, confirming the order dated 04.09.2006 in O.P. No.10 of 1999 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.