HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO A.S.No.175 of 2002 Dated: 03-06-2010 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur. Appellant AND Vetti Narayana Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO A.S.No.175 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, dated 14.09.2001 made in O.P.No.66 of 1998 enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.2.99 cents of land in Sy.Nos.49 and 50 belonged to the claimant-respondent herein situated in Komali Village of Tadpatri Mandal was acquired by Government for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the society by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 21.11.1996 followed by publication of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 14.12.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed an award on 27.4.1997 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre. The claimant having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for reference to the Civil Court for due determination of the market value. On reference being made, the claimant appeared and filed claim statement before the reference Court claiming compensation at Rs.2,000/- per cent i.e. Rs.2.00 lakhs per acre. To prove the market value, the claimant apart from himself examining as C.W.1 got examined two more witnesses as C.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.10. On behalf of the referring Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1, statement of claimant recorded by L.A.O.; and Ex.A.2, the copy of the award were marked on his behalf. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimant as C.W.1 deposed that the railway station of Komali is situated at a distance of 1 k.m. from the village limits, and that he used to grow ground-nut, chilli crops etc. and used to get income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre per annum. He further stated that the Tadpatri Municipality is at a distance of 4 k.m. from the village, and that the acquired land is fertile and potential. The Village Administrative Officer, who was examined as C.W.2 corroborated the evidence of the claimant-C.W.1 to the effect that C.W.1 used to raise ground-nut and sun-flower in the acquired land and used to get income of Rs.6,000/- per acre. The factum of crops being raised by the claimant was also recorded in No.3 Adangal for the years 1992 to 1996. C.W.3, who is the vendee under Ex.B.2 deposed that he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.65-D, situated in Komali Village from Talari Naganna and Narayana for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- which works out to Rs.75,000/- per acre, through registered sale deed, dated 3.7.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award himself observed that the land is situated at a distance of one furlong from the village on southern side, and that there is R & B road which is adjacent to Sy.No.49 which leads from Pedda Pappur to Tadpatri. There is electricity and drinking water facility available nearby the land. As seen from the impugned order, the reference Court discarded Ex.B.2 sale deed holding that the vendee purchased the land for the purpose of hayrick yard and the said area is accessible for him and for the said purpose C.W.3 had paid more amount than the market value. But having regard to the availability of facilities and development, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre. The reasoning adopted by the reference Court in discarding Ex.B.2 that C.W.3 offered more value that the market value since it is adjacent to the land owned by him, itself is not sufficient to discard the sale deed-Ex.B.2, but necessary deductions have to be made by taking into consideration the value mentioned in the said sale deed. Considering the evidence adduced by the claimant that the land is having all the potentialities to convert into house-sites as the Tadpatri Municipality is only 4 k.ms. away from the village, even if half of the value mentioned in sale deed under Ex.B.2 is deducted, the market value of the acquired land still comes to Rs.37,500/- per acre. But, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre i.e. 1/5th of the value mentioned under Ex.B.2 sale deed, which is no-doubt, less than the market value prevalent as on the date of issuance of notification. But the claimant has not preferred any cross-objections to claim higher compensation. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit to interfere with the enhancement of compensation made by the reference Court. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ JUNE 03, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.