HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CCCA.No. 166 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.376 of 1991 on the file of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 18.12.2001. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad indulged in the acquisition of 88.55 square yards of the respondent for purpose of road widening and under the award, the respondent was granted compensation at Rs.135/- per square yard. Being dissatisfied, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on which the adjudication by the reference Court under the impugned award became necessitated. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined PWs 1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 and B.1 to B.3. Under the impugned award, the reference Court examined the question of the market value prevailing at the relevant time and referred to the rival contentions and evidence on record. The reference Court noted that the land acquired was the front portion of the premises of the claimant in D.No.8- 2-698, road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the same is located in a posh locality in the heart of the city. The reference Court also noted the claim of the claimant that the property covered by Ex.B.3 sale deed dated 11.12.1989 is located at a distance of half furlong and is not abutting the main road and the same was admitted by R.W.1 in his evidence. The reference Court also noted that from the sketch filed by R.W.1 Ex.B.2 and the admission of R.W.1, it is evident that the property covered by Ex.B.3 is in a lonely area and is not abutting the main road. The reference Court, therefore, found that when Ex.B.1 award itself describes the land under Ex.B.3 to be at a distance of ½ furlong and when the acquired land is abutting the main road, being the front portion of the residential property of the claimant, the transaction under Ex.B.3 could not have been taken as a comparable transaction. The reference Court also found that the recitals of Exs.B.1 and B.2 show that item No.1 of Ex.B.1 award in respect of 490 square yards sold at Rs.1,00,000/- is a comparable transaction and hence the market value has to be fixed on an identical scale. The claim for damages of Rs.50,000/- made of course was negatived by the reference Court and on the said value based on item No.1 of Ex.B.1 award, the reference Court enhanced the compensation and also granted the consequential statutory benefits to the claimant. The State preferred the present appeal contending that Ex.B.3 transaction should have been taken as the basis for fixing the market value as done by the Land Acquisition Officer and Exs.A.1 and A.2 could not have been relied on being post-notification sales. The State also contended that the additional amount should have been granted from the date of notification till the date of the award only. Sri S.Md.Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant is heard and none appeared for the respondent though served with notice. The point for consideration is whether the enhancement ordered by the reference Court is just and reasonable and represents the market value of the property at the relevant time? The basic premise on which the State preferred the appeal presuming Exs.A.1 and A.2 post notification sales as the basis of the conclusions of the reference Court is incorrect as the reference Court based its assumption of the market value on the very first transaction referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award Ex.B.1 as comparable sale and had given cogent reasons as to why non-consideration of the said sale transaction by the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified. Similarly, the objection of the State against grant of additional amount for any excess period is also not correct as the reference Court was also clear that the additional market value shall have to be paid only from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the date of award or taking possession whichever is earlier. If the possession was taken prior to the notification, then the alternative of paying the said amount from the date of notification till the date of award automatically operates without any conflict with the statutory provisions in this regard. The fixation of the value of Rs.204.08 ps per square yard for the acquired land in the heart of the city in a posh locality, more so adjoining the road margin on the arterial road cannot be considered unreasonable, more so when it is based on a comparable sale transaction of the relevant time and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the reference Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 24th December, 2010 PNV