JUDGMENT : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. 1. Heard Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the claimants challenging the order and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the lands to an extent of Acs. 6.30 guntas situated in Gangadhara Village, Karimnagar District, belonging to the appellants-claimants, were acquired for formation of new broad gauge single Railway line from Karimnagar to Jagtial passing through under the limits of Gangadhara Village; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Gazette on 08.07.2002; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 07.11.2002; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award No. 6 of 2004, dated 15.03.2005, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.60,000/- per acre, for both wet and dry agricultural lands. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted in the Award, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Reference Court. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. 6. The Reference Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre from Rs.60,000/- per acre for the acquired lands, apart from granting separate and different compensation for the tube wells and pipelines existing in the acquired lands to each of the claimants and also granted compensation for the standing crop and trees existing in the acquired lands, along with other statutory benefits under the Act. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 7. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has picked up irrelevant and undervalued sale deeds and adopted them for fixing the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the market value of the acquired land taking into consideration the fact that the acquired lands are situated in the limits of Gangadhara Mandal Head Quarters and in the vicinity of the acquired lands, there are main industrial, educational, residential and commercial developments; that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court have erred in taking note that by the time of acquisition of the subject lands, the same were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and are being sold as house sites; and that the Reference Court while determining the compensation for the tube wells and pipe lines in the acquired lands of the appellants-claimants, failed to consider Ex.P-4- Estimation prepared by PW-3 and awarded a meager sum as compensation and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 which was followed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in The Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Collector, Vijayawada vs. Shaik Bhaileem and Others, AIR 1996 AP 14 . 9. In Administrator General of West Bengal’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “......The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made....” 10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and following the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands and the compensation granted by the Reference Court towards tube wells, pipe lines, standing crop and trees in the acquired lands is just and reasonable and therefore, there are no merits in the Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. A perusal of the Ex.B-1-Award goes to show that the Land Acquisition Officer has stated therein that during the enquiry, it is revealed that the prevailing market value of the irrigation lands situated in Gangadhara Village & Mandal Headquarters are ranging from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. It is further stated that however, on mutual understanding between the vendors and vendees, the registrations were made at the rates above the basic value but below the prevailing market value and fixed the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.60,000/- per acre. 12. In support of their claim for enhancement, the appellants-claimants relied upon Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds. However, the said documents pertain to sale of house sites situated in Sy. No. 1004/A of Gangadhara Village on yardage basis. PW-2 who is one of the vendors of Exs.P-1 and P-2 deposed that the distance between the subject acquired lands and the State Highway is below 1,000 meters and that there are colleges, industries and other shopping complexes within the vicinity of the acquired lands and as such, the acquired lands are also useful for house sites and other commercial establishments. 13. On behalf of the Referring Officer, apart from examining the Land Acquisition Officer as RW-1, Exs.R-2 to R-4-sale deeds were marked. RW-1 deposed that while passing the Award, the value mentioned in Exs.R-2 to R-4 was adopted since the lands covered thereunder are nearer and identical to the subject acquired lands. 14. 13. On behalf of the Referring Officer, apart from examining the Land Acquisition Officer as RW-1, Exs.R-2 to R-4-sale deeds were marked. RW-1 deposed that while passing the Award, the value mentioned in Exs.R-2 to R-4 was adopted since the lands covered thereunder are nearer and identical to the subject acquired lands. 14. On a thorough scrutiny of Exs.P-1 and P-2 and Exs.R-2 to R-4, the Reference Court found that none of the documents marked on behalf of the claimants or the Referring Officer pertain to the survey number of the subject acquired lands, though they relate to Gangadhara Village. However, the Reference Court proceeded to rely upon Exs.R-2 to R-4 as they pertain to sale of agricultural lands for the period very near to the date of issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and taking of possession of the acquired lands. The subject acquired lands are agricultural lands. The appellants-claimants except taking a plea that the subject acquired lands were converted from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes, did not choose to adduce any evidence to that effect before the Reference Court. In such an event, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon Exs.R-2 to R-4 for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands, which needs no interference by this Court. 15. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that the acquired lands are red chelka soil lands rich in fertility, utility and are double crop dry wet lands and are cultivated with water through electric motor pump sets. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.B-1- Award also, the Land Acquisition Officer has noted that there were irrigation wells and pipe lines existing in the acquired lands. Therefore, the existence of tube wells and pipelines is established by the appellants-claimants. 16. As regards the compensation for the tube wells and pipelines in the subject acquired lands, the appellants-claimants examined a retired Municipal Engineer as PW-3 and got marked Ex.P-4-Estimates prepared by him. PW-3 deposed that the pipelines and agricultural wells existing in the acquired lands are worth more than Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of each of the claimants. In this regard, it is relevant to note that RW-1 admitted that they have not adopted capitalization method in acquisition of the subject lands. 17. PW-3 deposed that the pipelines and agricultural wells existing in the acquired lands are worth more than Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of each of the claimants. In this regard, it is relevant to note that RW-1 admitted that they have not adopted capitalization method in acquisition of the subject lands. 17. When Ex.P-4-Estimates of the valuation of the tube wells and pipelines in the acquired lands were marked through PW-3, this Court sees no justification on the part of the Reference Court to simply ignore the same and confirm the amounts awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, without assigning any reasons therefor. 18. Since, PW-3 who prepared the estimates of the tube wells and pipe lines and deposed before the Reference Court, is a retired Municipal Engineer, his evidence and estimates cannot be brushed aside. 19. Here, it is apt to mention that in the instant case, there was no capitalization of the value of land and structures on it and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525 , wherein it is held that when there is no capitalization of the value of land and structure by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award, the claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land, tube well and structure, this Court deems it justifiable to hold that in the instant case, the appellants-claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the tube wells and pipelines that existed in the acquired lands. 20. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, Ex.P-4-Estimates prepared by PW-3, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if reasonable escalation of compensation is given for the tube wells and pipelines present in the acquired lands of the appellants-claimants. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation for the tube wells and pipelines that existed in the acquired lands by 30% over and above the compensation awarded by the Reference Court to each of the appellants-claimants. 21. The Appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The remaining portion of the impugned order of the Reference Court remains unaltered. No order as to costs. 22. 21. The Appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The remaining portion of the impugned order of the Reference Court remains unaltered. No order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.