THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NOS.205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 AND 215 OF 2007 DATED 20TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN The Special Deputy Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, T.G.P., Nandyal. … Appellant/ Referring Officer And Kancherla Chandra Sekhar Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NOS.205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 AND 215 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) The State is in appeal in this batch of cases aggrieved by the common Order and Decree dated 16.04.2004 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer upon reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) in O.P.No.109 of 1993 and batch. The lands of the respondents in Narayanapuram, Kurnool District, were acquired by the State for the excavation of Bandi Atmakur Major Distributory. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.05.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer, upon due enquiry, classified the lands into three categories and determined the compensation payable at Rs.10,000/- per acre, Rs.11,000/- per acre and Rs.12,000/- per acre for each different category. Dissatisfied therewith and claiming Rs.50,000/- per acre, the respondents herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Upon the evidence adduced, the reference Court, by its Common Order dated 16.04.2004 in the batch of O.Ps., found that the acquired lands were fertile and had potential for raising crops such as groundnut, chilli, jowar, red gram and paddy. However, as no evidence was let in to show the yield of the said lands, the Court relied upon Ex.B.1 sale deed dated 22.03.1984, which it held to be genuine upon examination. The extent involved in the sale transaction under Ex.B.1 was only Ac.0.16 cents. Therefore, the Court below was of the opinion that by its very nature the land under the sale deed would be different from the acquired lands though it was situated nearby. As the sale consideration under Ex.B.1 put the land value at Rs.50,000/- per acre, the reference Court was of the opinion that 50% thereof should be deducted towards development charges reducing the market value to Rs.25,000/- per acre. This value was adopted for category-I lands and proportionately, the market value for categories-II and III lands was reduced by Rs.1,000/- each per acre. Thereby, the reference Court determined the market value of categories-I, II and III lands at Rs.25,000/-, Rs.24,000/- and Rs.23,000/- per acre respectively. As pointed out by the reference Court, Ex.B.1 sale deed, being sufficiently anterior to the date of the Section 4(1) notification and being between parties who were in no way affected by the acquisition, commended itself as a genuine transaction worthy of acceptance. The Court below having acted upon the market value emerging from the sale consideration thereunder effected necessary deduction towards development charges by reducing the value by 50%. The said reduced value was adopted as the market value by providing for proportionate reductions for the different categories of land as classified by the Land Acquisition Officer. We find no reason to disagree with the approach or the findings of the reference Court. The orders and decrees under challenge are accordingly confirmed and the appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR