THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos.1562, 1759 & 1894 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. These appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Mandal Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Gudur, Nellore District, are directed against the common order dated 25.04.1997 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.116, 117 and 118 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gudur, Nellore District. The respondents are the claimants. 2. An extent of Ac.0.31 cents, Ac.0.53 cents and Ac.0.87 cents in total Ac.1.71 cents of land situated in S.Nos.802/1A2, 802/1B2, 802/1C2 and 802/2 of East Gudur Village and Mandal belonging to the claimants, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the people belonging to schedule tribes living in Poolathota area of East Gudur, pursuant to the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 2.01.1987. Possession of the land was taken on 4.04.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry passed award No.7/86-87 dated 23.03.1987 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.11,579/- per acre. 3. Not satisfied with the fixation of compensation, the claimants received the amount under protest and sought to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court. On reference being made, the reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed these three appeals contending that enhancement of compensation made by the reference Court @ Rs.20,000/- per acre as against Rs.11,579/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, is without any basis and the reference Court ought to have confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer basing on Ex.B.2- document No.961/1985. 4. On behalf of the claimants one of the claimant in O.P.No.117 of 1988, which is the subject matter of A.S.No.1894 of 2000 was examined as CW.1; a resident of Balireddypalem village, who purchased an extent of 36 ankanams of land under Ex.A.4 for a consideration of Rs.700/- per ankanam was examined as CW.2; a resident of Chinna Kattuvapalli village, who purchased an extent of about 19 ¾ ankanams of land under Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 2.07.1986 from M. Sujathamma for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- was examined as CW.3; and a resident of Gudur village, who purchased 52 ankanams of land under Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 1.06.1987 from N. Sudarshanamma for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- was examined as CW.4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the referring Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time, was examined as RW.1, and one more witness whose lands are situated by the side of the lands acquired in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1988, was examined as RW.2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 5. RW.1, who is the Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time, deposed that the Government acquired total extent of Ac.1.71 cents situated in S.Nos.802/1A2, 802/1B2, 802/1C2 and 802/2 of East Gudur Village and Mandal belonging to the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.116, 117 and 118 of 1988 pursuant to the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 2.01.1987 and the award was passed on 23.02.1987. He deposed that the acquired land exists to the North of the Old Girijan Colony and was lower in level by four feet when compared with Brahmin Street. The Government raised the level of the acquired land by spending Rs.2,00,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on the sale deed in Document No.961/85, dated 28.06.1985 executed by Gundala Penchalaiah and Gundala Venkatasubbaiah in favour of Nellore Sudarshanamma, W/o. Kodandaramireddy, under which an extent of Ac.0.28 ½ cents of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.3,300/-, which works out to Rs.11,579/- per acre. He also deposed that the land in the above sale transaction dated 28.06.1985 relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, is nearer to the acquired land in S.No.802. In the cross-examination, he admitted that during the award enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer collected 10 sale statistics of three years prior to the notification, but he did not consider eight sale deeds as they were small extents of Ac.0- .05 cents only. The said eight sale transactions reflect the sale of land @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and more. The sale deeds referred to in the award were made in respect of the wet lands situated in East Gudur village. There was a time gap of two years from the date of notification to the date of eight sale transactions. He further admitted that Brahmin street was a residential area having great potential value. The distance between Brahmin street and the land acquired was bout 50 yards. There was no other land available except the land acquired for the purpose of house sites. He further admitted that the Land Acquisition Officer noted the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.16,800/- per acre as the same was the basic value. 6. RW.2 is the vendor of Ac.0.28 ½ cents of land covered by document No.961 of 1985 dated 27.06.1985 based on which the Land acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.11579/- per acre. He stated that he does not know whether any plots were made. Thus from the claim of the claimants and even as per the eight sale transactions referred to in the award proceedings, it is clear that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of time is Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. He placed reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.4, A.6 and A.7. Ex.A.5 is the rough sketch plan. 7. The reference Court discarded Exs.A.1 to A.4, A.6 and A.7 on the ground that none connected to the said document is examined. When the certified copies of Ex.A.1 to A.4, A.6 and A.7 are filed, we are of the opinion that the reference Court ought to have placed reliance on the said documents in view of the fact that as per Section 51-A of the Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Therefore, merely because connected persons are not examined, it cannot be said that the said documents cannot be relied upon. Similarly, Exs.A.2 to A.4 and the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants was discarded on the ground that the said lands are not similarly situated. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer himself placed reliance on the said documents but he discarded the said documents on the ground that the sale transactions covered by the said documents are small extents. Though the sale transactions covered by the eight sale deeds, on which reliance was not placed in the award proceedings reflect market value @ Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre but however, the claimants have restricted their claim only to Rs.300/- per ankanam i.e., Rs.1,80,000/- per acre. Hence the reference Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Admittedly, the lands situated in Gudur village were acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections that too pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 2.01.1987. In fact the lands in Gudur town were sold on ankanam basis, where as the reference Court fixed the market value on acreage basis i.e., @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Even if Ex.B.2 sale transaction vide document No.961/85, which has been relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is taken into consideration and if necessary escalation is added to the said sale transaction taking into consideration the potentiality of the land in that locality as evident from the oral evidence, we are of the opinion that the said market value fixed by the reference Court is just and fair market value, which in fact less than the true market value. Therefore we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the reference Court. 8. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19th October, 2010 Js.