THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD LAAS.NO.833 OF 2005 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS {SR} NO.699 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} The appeal is at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 06.10.2004 passed in O.P.No.69 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in a reference arising under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of the market rate in respect of the entire lands acquired. The claimants filed Cross Objections {SR} No.699 of 2006 under Order XLI Rule 22 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking further enhancement of compensation. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal and the Cross Objections {SR}, are that in pursuance of a notification dated 08.02.1994 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, lands of an extent of Acs.4.11 gts situated in Survey Nos.96, 99 and 100 of Konapur Village of Kammarpally Mandal were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the people of weaker section. After holding enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 04.08.1994 fixing the market rate at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Not satisfied thereby, the claimants sought reference. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1-copy of judgment in O.P.No.327 of 1984 was marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the State, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-award dated 04.08.1994 was marked. After taking into consideration the evidence on record and especially placing reliance on the deposition of P.W.1, the Court below enhanced the market rate from Rs.20,000/- per acre and fixed the same at Rs.40,000/- per acre. Hence, the appeal by the State. Not satisfied with the said enhancement by the Court below, the claimants filed Cross Objections {SR} seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Learned Government Pleader submitted that even though there is no absolute evidence of similar date sale transactions produced by the appellant and the only document marked is Ex.A1, which is a copy of the judgment in respect of fixing the market rate of the land situated in Bheemgal Mandal, which is far away place to the land concerned in this case, the Court below ought not to have followed the Capitalization Method in the absence of any material on record. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that Ex.A1 is sufficient enough only to indicate the market rate not only to the lands situated in that particular Mandal but also surrounding villages. Therefore, it would be sufficient to enhance the market rate. Learned counsel also filed Cross Objections seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Court below. Taking into consideration the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the market rate fixed by the Court below is just and reasonable. There is no dispute to the aforesaid chequered events, which led to the acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker section of the society, the enquiry conducted both by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court below for fixation of market rate. It is seen from the record that there have been several transactions referred to during the course of award enquiry and the award was marked as Ex.B1. Neither side has produced any sale transactions of the same village and absolutely, there is no explanation coming forth from either side. Further, the only document based on is Ex.A1, which pertains to different village far away from the lands situated in the present case. Without placing any reliance on Ex.A1 and without following the market rate in Ex.A1, the Court below sought to fix the market rate by following Capitalization Method. There is neither material nor any specific proof to support such Capitalization Method. Neither there is any document to show the nature of the crop raised or the income that could have been fetched. It is also pointed out during the course of enquiry that in fact, all the lands are situated at Nizamabad- Karimnagar border and having regard to the water supply from Polavaram Project, the market rate would be more. Even on this account also, we find no evidence on behalf of both the sides. In view of the fact that there is no evidence from either side, it is difficult to fix market rate and especially when there is no explanation as to why such evidence could not possibly be produced. It is not the case that such evidence could not have been produced. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the approach of the Court below is totally bereft of any valid material in support. Hence, the matter requires consideration afresh. Both the appeal and the Cross Objections {SR} No.699 of 2006 are allowed and the order dated 06.10.2004 passed in O.P.No.69 of 1995 is set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Court below for consideration afresh after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. It is needless to mention that both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence, if they so chose. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 28th January 2011 RRB