HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S. No. 1459 of 2001 DATED: 14.02.2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer .. Appellant And Venkataswamy Chetty and 7 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) This Appeal Suit is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 15.12.2000 made in O.P. No.28 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in a reference sought for under Section 18 of the Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.11.67 cents of land situated in Patnam village, Bangarupalem Taluk, Chittoor District was acquired by the Government, vide its Notification dated 16.01.1984 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, and an Award No.6 of 1984-85, dated 19.03.1985 was passed fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer sought reference under Section 31(2) of the Act for deciding the ownership of the land in dispute, and the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, by order and decree dated 08.04.1993 made in O.P. No.28 of 1985, enhanced the market value at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by this order, the claimants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.2458 of 1993 and this Court remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. On remand, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, by considering the evidence on record especially Ex.X1, fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre while allotting the respective shares of the land in question, vide judgment dated 15.12.2000 delivered in O.P. No. 28 of 1985. Being aggrieved by the market rate enhanced by the trial Court and the allotment of shares of the property, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellant has mainly contended that the nature of dispute is totally inter-dependent and also separate as contemplated under Sections 18 and 31 of the Act, and there could not have been one reference under Section 30 of the Act, as such, this appeal is filed only after accepting the proceedings as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act and the other proceedings normally should have been taken recourse to. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has opposed the contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Taking into consideration the submissions and also perused the material placed on record, the two points that arise for consideration are as follows: a) As to whether under the facts and circumstances of the case only one reference under Sections 18 and 31 of the Act is valid? b) As to whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, market value fixed by the trial Court is just and reasonable? Curiously, this is a case where there is a dispute inter se regarding the title of the property, and the reference was made jointly both under Sections 18 and 31(2) of the Act and the same was taken up in O.P. No.28 of 1985. Subsequently, a common enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was held. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant. RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the respondents-claimants and Ex.X1 was marked through a Court witness. Coming to the first point, it is well-established principle that this Court has taken a view having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Act that it is not permissible to jointly make a reference under Sections 18 and 31 of the Act. Necessarily as already pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it is only after determination of the market value the parties should seek the reference for deciding the title of the property, but not otherwise or at least separate reference could have been sought for, which could have been taken separately by conducting separate enquiry and separate award could have been passed. In the circumstances, we hold that seeking single reference under both Sections 18 and 31 of the Act, is not valid. Hence, we treat this reference as one under Section 18 of the Act leaving open to the parties to take proper steps for making due reference to the Court and settle their disputes. Coming to other aspect of the matter, from the oral evidence which is produced on behalf of the claimants and also various other transactions, it is clear that main reliance is placed on Ex.B9 – Registration copy of the sale deed, dated 30.11.1983 by which RW4, the vendor sold an extent of Ac.1.98 cents of land for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Therefore, by making the consideration half, it would come to Rs.20,000/-, whereas in the present case, only Rs.19,000/- per acre is granted before the matter under reference was remanded for fresh enquiry. Apparently, the sale transaction is one of rejection of notification as admitted by PWs.1 and 2 that Ex.B9 was executed prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, we are of the opinion that the trial Court rightly fixed the market value. In the circumstances, we affirm the market value at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per acre as fixed by the trial Court vide its order dated 08.04.1993. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent of restricting the reference to only under Section 18 of the Act leaving it open to the parties to seek reference separately for settlement of the dispute with regard to the title of the land in question, and set aside the extent of the market value at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre as determined by the trial Court vide its order dated 15.12.2000. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J 14.04.2011 __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD,J bcj