IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S.Nos.445 OF 2006 AND 20 OF 2008 Date:21-02-2011 L.A.A.S.No.445 OF 2006:- Between:- M/s.Leeladhar Narayanjee and sons, rep.by Donepudi Venugopal. .. Claimant/Appellant And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar and another. .. Respondents AND L.A.A.S.No.20 OF 2008:- Between:- The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar and another. .. Appellant/Respondent And M/s.Leeladhar Narayanjee and sons, rep.by Donepudi Venugopal. .. Respondent/claimant COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Since the parties in both these appeals are one and the same and both these appeals arise out of O.P.No.471 of 1998, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. L.A.A.S.No.445 of 2006 filed by the claimant and L.A.A.S.No.20 of 2008 filed by the State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) are directed against the order dated 31.03.2006 in O.P.No.471 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking enhancement of compensation and questioning the quantum of compensation granted respectively. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in L.A.A.S.No.445 of 2006. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the land to an extent of Acs.3.37 guntas in survey No.63 of Thimmapur Village of Kothur Mandal was acquired for construction of L.P.G. bottling unit by issuing 4(1) notification on 05.06.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2,10,000/- per acre against the claim for Rs.500/- per sq. yard. As such, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The learned I Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,10,000/- per acre to Rs.156/- per sq. yard. 4. Before the reference Court, the appellant/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Narender Reddy on his behalf as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 award dated 13.02.1998 was marked. 5. The learned District Judge, by taking into consideration of the documents, relied on Ex.A-2 sale deed dated 04.05.1995 under which 500 sq. yards was sold at Rs.260/- per sq. yard and as the said sale transaction relates to a small extent, by giving 50% deduction and awarding escalation at 20%, enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land at Rs.156/- per sq. yard. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has pleaded that the highest sale transaction has to be taken into consideration while fixing the compensation and in support of his contention, he relied upon Exs.A-3, A-4 and A-8. 7. A perusal of the records shows that under Ex.A-3, an extent of 269 sq. yards in survey No.103 was sold at Rs.907/- per sq. yard; under Ex.A-4, an extent of 120 sq. yards in survey No.40/A was sold at Rs.700/- per sq. yard; and under Ex.A-8, an extent of 100 sq. yards in survey No.99/A of Thimmapur Village was sold at Rs.260/- per sq. yard. Exs.A-3, A-4 and A-8 transactions are of 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. The learned District Judge has taken into consideration the above said documents and as per the evidence, the sale transaction covered under Ex.A-3 is half kilometer away from the acquired land; the sale transaction covered under Ex.A-4 pertains to neighbouring Village - Pottur and both these sale transactions are prior transaction covered by Ex.A-2. Under Exs.A-3 and A-4, the rate per sq. yard is higher than the rate under which the sale transaction under Ex.A-2. With regard to Ex.A-8, even though it is of Thimmapur Village and the sale is at the rate of Rs.260/- per sq. yard, the transaction is prior to Section 4(1) notification issued in respect of acquired land. Therefore, the Court below has rightly taken into consideration the sale transaction covered by Ex.A-2, as the said transaction is in the same survey number in which the acquired land is situated. However, the learned District Judge has made a deduction of 50%, taking into consideration that Ex.A-2 sale transaction relates to only a small extent of land. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has pleaded that as the purpose for which the land acquired for installation of L.P.G. bottling plant is commercial, no deduction need be made. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Atma Singh (died) through L.Rs. and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.[1], wherein the Apex Court taking into consideration that the land was not acquired for the purpose of making house plots, but it is only for setting up a factory/industry which will give substantial returns, and as such, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are small plots, and however, the Apex Court has made a deduction of 10% of the market value. In the present case, under Ex.A-2, an extent of 500 sq. yards was sold at Rs.260/- per sq. yard. 9. The learned Government Pleader appearing for State/L.A.O. has pleaded that the acquired land is an agricultural land and the sale transaction in Ex.A-2 for 500 sq. yards for the purpose of house plot and it is sham and nominal transaction brought by only for the purpose of claiming compensation. The said contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted since the said sale transaction in Ex.A-2 has taken place two years prior to Section 4(1) notification issued in respect of acquired land. However, in view of the fact that the sale transaction in Ex.A-2 was only in respect of a small extent, which is for the purpose of house site, 1/3rd deduction has to be made towards development activity etc for fixing compensation for larger extent. Accordingly, after deducting 1/3rd, the rate per sq. yard comes to Rs.174/-. Since the sale transaction in Ex.A-2 is of the year 1995 and the present acquisition was made in the year 1997, escalation has to be granted at the rate of 10% per year. After giving escalation of 10% per year, the rate per sq. yard comes to Rs.208/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.208/- per sq. yard. The appellant/claimant is also entitled for all the attendant benefits as per the amended Act. 10. The appeal filed by the claimant i.e., L.A.A.S.No.445 of 2006 is partly allowed accordingly the appeal filed by the State i.e., L.A.A.S.No.20 of 2008 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 21st February, 2011 AMD [1] AIR 2008 SC 709