HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.1354 OF 2000 Dt.6.7.2010 Between: State of A.P., through the Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad. ..Appellant And G.Ramalinga Reddy and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.1354 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 16.4.1999 in O.P.No.28 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet. Appellant herein is the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad and the respondents herein are the claimants. The lands of the respondent-claimants to an extent of Ac.39.26 guntas in Sy.Nos.380, 381, 382 and 383 situate at Islampur village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, were acquired for industrial purpose pursuant to the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) which was published on 10.6.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry passed Ex.B-1 award dated 3.11.1993 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre. The claimants received the said compensation under protest and on reference under Section 18 of the Act the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.20/- per sq.yard which comes to Rs.96,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed this appeal. Heard both the learned counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable and the Land Acquisition Officer having taken into consideration the relevant sale transactions prior to the date of 4(1) notification fixed the market value of the land acquired. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer after taking into consideration the various sale transactions with regard to the location, fertility and utility of the land while fixing the market value. Ex.A-1 is one such registered sale deed document No.2118 of 1990 in respect of Sy.No.379 covered to an extent of Ac.1332 sq.yards, which was sold at Rs.40/- per sq.yard. It is also stated that the Reference Court erred in relying Exs.A-1 to A-4 sale transactions while deciding the market value of the acquired lands. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that all other survey numbers covered by various sale deeds are nearer and abutting to national highway. Ex.A-1 dated 9.7.1990 is one such registered sale deed document No.2118/90 in respect of Sy.No.379 to an extent of 1332 sq.yards sold at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.yard and therefore Ex.A-1 sale deed was also considered by the Land Acquisition Officer is a relevant document. The claimants were examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. P.W.1 is claimant No.8, P.W.2 is claimant No.6, P.W.3 is claimant No.2, P.W.4 is vendor of Ex.A-3, P.W.5 is vendor of Ex.A-1 and P.Ws.6 and 7 are residents of Islampur village. P.W.1, who is claimant No.8, stated that the acquired lands are at a distance of 3 K.Ms. from Toopran and they are abutting to national highway No.7 and they used to raise groundnut and maize in the acquired land prior to acquisition and used to get 25 bags of groundnut per acre and used to get 20 to 25 quintals of maize crop for every acre. Adjacent to the acquired land there is Bhagvathi sugar factory since 1965 and there are pro-agro industries near the acquired land since 1991 and there is Masaipet railway station at a distance of 1 K.M. from the acquired land. It is stated that the irrigation source for the acquired land is from ‘vagu’ towards southern side and they used to get the water by lifting the water from the ‘vagu’. It is stated that prior to the acquisition the land was sold at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.yard vide Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 9.7.1990 and the land covered under Ex.A-1 is 1332 sq.yards in respect of Sy.No.379 of Islampur village. Ex.A-2 is the sale deed bearing document No.2086/90 dated 5.7.1990 is an extent of Ac.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.348 which was sold at Rs.20/- per sq.yard which comes to Rs.96,800/- per acre. Ex.A-3 is also another sale deed bearing document No.1906/1990 dated 16.6.1990 in respect of Sy.No.351 reflecting the value of the land at Rs.72,640/- per acre. Ex.A-4 is the sale transaction bearing document No.1377/92, dated 25.5.1992 in respect of Sy.No.1054 admeasuring Ac.2.35 guntas situate at Thathapapanpally village hamlet of Toopran. P.W.1 also stated that the Government acquired land for electricity sub station in the neighbouring village at Rs.12/- per sq.yard on reference under Section 18 of the Act prior to acquistion in O.P.No.11 of 1985. According to the claimants, they claimed for enhancement of compensation at Rs.100/- per sq.yard. The other claimants also stated that the lands acquired are very potential than the land covered under Exs.A-1 to A-4 and there are industries, sugar industries, rice mills, Agro industries and the railway station was situated at a distance of half a K.M. from the acquired land and they have also filed Ex.A-5 sketch map showing the location of the industries. R.W.1, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries), was examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. He stated that the draft declaration was published in the Gazettee on 12.6.1991 and possession was taken on 7.12.1993 and for fixation of market value, sale statistics of Islampur village of Toopran mandal had been obtained from the Sub Registrar and basing on the statistics compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre in 1993 under Ex.B-1 award dated 3.11.1993 and stated that the claim made by the claimants is unreasonable and exorbitant. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the sale transaction of Ex.A-1 reflects the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.yard, which was also shown at Sl.No.25 of Ex.B-1 award. He admitted that item No.25 of Ex.B-1 is prior to 4(1) notification. It is also admitted that in respect of the land acquired previously the Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.yard, which was also confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.767 of 1987, which was marked as Ex.A-8. It is stated that the said transaction cannot be treated as a genuine document. It is further stated that the claim of the claimants at Rs.100/- per sq.yard is exorbitant and Ex.A-1 document cannot be taken into consideration. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the evidence of R.W.1, the approach of the land acquisition officer in discarding Ex.A-1 transaction which is admittedly prior to 4 (1) notification, is not justifiable and without any basis and therefore, the finding of the Reference Court with regard to Ex.A-1 transaction while awarding the compensation to the claimants, holds good. The Reference Court further noticed that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of 1 K.M. away from the village as per evidence of P.W.2 and on this aspect there is no cross-examination and as per Exs.A-6 and A-7 in respect of previous acquisition the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.yard was confirmed by this Court under Ex.A-8. Admittedly, the land covered under Ex.A-1 was purchased for industrial purpose, which is abutting to the lands in question. But, the land acquired is large extent and therefore half of the land is required for development of roads and amenities. It is stated that as per the evidence of P.W.2 the land covered under Ex.A-1 is abutting to national highway and the compensation fixed in respect of the land acquired was a year prior to the land acquired. But, however, the land acquired in the instant case is large extent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly taken into consideration Ex.A-1 by fixing the market value at 50% of the value covered by Ex.A-1 sale transaction. Ex.A-3 also relates to the sale transaction of 605 sq.yards in respect of Sy.No.351 which works out to Rs.72,640/- per acre. Ex.A-3 sale transaction is also prior to 4(1) notification and if 10% escalation is added it works out approximately to Rs.80,000/-. In fact, Ex.A-1 is the only relevant document whereunder the lands were situated nearby the acquired land and it is the latest among the series of sale deeds being dated 9.7.1990. The total extent of land covered in reference is only to an extent of Ac.24.33 ½ guntas pertaining to the claimants. The Reference Court having taken into consideration the oral evidence particularly the previous acquisition of land covered under Ex.A-6 to A-8, which was more than nine years ago, fixed the compensation at Rs.12/- per sq.yard and if 10% of escalation is taken into consideration for each year, it works out to Rs.19/- per sq.yard. Therefore, we are of the opinion that taking into consideration Exs.A-6 to A-8 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 the Reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.yard. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is just and reasonable which reflects the true market value. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 6.7.2010 kpr