THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 215 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District, filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 31.08.2001 passed in O.P. No. 20 of 1997 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. Brief facts of the appeal are that the land of the respondent- claimant, to an extent of Ac. 3-55 cents in Sy. No. 174/1-B situated at Manepalli village, Lepakshi Mandal of Anantapur District, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to houseless poor persons, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published in District Gazette on 23.02.1996. After following the due procedure prescribed, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The respondent-claimant, not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought reference of the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On the reference being made, the claimant filed claim statement before the reference Court, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land. Before the reference Court, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 was marked, while no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court, having considered the stand of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence adduced, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre, based on Ex.A1 document, and also granted to the claimant, other statutory benefits as detailed in the order under appeal, and accordingly answered the reference. Contending that the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation, by placing reliance on Ex.A1 document, which was discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer filed the present appeal. Heard the Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the claimant and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. Admittedly, the land of the claimant was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to houseless poor persons. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the claimant, in his evidence as P.W.1, has deposed that he used to raise groundnut crop in the acquired land and earn net annual income of Rs.23,000/- per acre. He filed Ex.A1 document, which is the registration extract of sale deed in respect of the land in Sy.No.210/2, which is situated adjacent to the acquired land, and the land covered thereby was sold at Rs.40,000/- per acre. According to the claimant, the land acquired is more fertile than the land covered by Ex.A1, and Manepalli village is nearer to Hindupur Town and Lepakshi Mandal Headquarters and there is also a road leading to Manepalli Village and hence there is no need to form a road to approach the acquired land. Though the Land Acquisition Officer refused to take into consideration the Ex.A1 document, while fixing the market value, on the ground that though the land covered by Ex.A1 was sold at Rs.40,000/- per acre, the basic value of the land was only Rs.8,000/-, but the fact remains, the sale transaction under Ex.A1 was anterior to the 4(1) notification issued in respect of the acquired land and as such there cannot be any doubt that the land was sold at a higher value than the existing market value, and hence the same can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation for the acquired land. Taking into consideration all the above facts and considering the fact that the adjacent land covered by Ex.A1 was sold prior to the 4(1) notification issued in respect of the acquired land, the reference Court felt it appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired land as per the value of the land covered under Ex.A1, and accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/-, which, in our opinion, cannot be found fault with. There are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the reference Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal suit is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ​_______________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 11th July, 2011 IBL