HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.2427 OF 1999 14.9.2010 Between: Syed Murthuja Khandri .. Appellant And The Special Deputy Collector, LAO, Srisailam Project, Kurnool. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.2427 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.745 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nandikotkur, dated 26.12.1997. Appellant herein is the claimant and the respondent is the Land Acquisition Officer, Srisailam Project, Kurnool. The land of the claimant to an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.64 and Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.71/2 of Sathanikota Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District, was acquired for the purpose Srisailam Hydro Electric Project pursuant to the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) published on 9.3.1978 and award No.2 of 1980, dated 4.3.1980, was passed fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1852.50 ps., per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer. On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court by the impugned order dated 26.12.1997 in O.P.No.745 of 1992 confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer without any enhancement. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the claimant contending that the land of the claimant is consisting of kallams and the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation even for the kallams equating with house sites, erred in ignoring Ex.B-1 sale transaction dated 23.2.1070 and the court below at least ought to have awarded Rs.2000/- per cent i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- per acre basing on Ex.B-1 sale deed. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the acquired land of the claimant consisting of kallams i.e., thrashing field for agriculture purpose. The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was dated 9.3.1978. The claimant was examined as R.W.1 and he filed Ex.B-1 registered sale deed dated 23.2.1970, which was purchased by R.W.2. Admittedly, the property purchased by R.W.2 under Ex.B- 1 is a house consisting of structures and its measurements are 4 yards x 3 ½ yards, which comes to 14 yards. The other sites are admittedly kallams. Although the value of kallam can be adopted for the house sites, the sale deed marked as Ex.B-1 cannot be taken into consideration as representing the correct market value and it cannot be taken as comparable sale. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court rightly declined to accept Ex.B-1 sale transaction, as it was a house, but not a kallam or thrashing field. There is no evidence adduced before the Reference Court about the potentiality of the land and its importance in 1978 and therefore it cannot be said that the value of the agriculture land is more than Rs.1852/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court ought to have fixed the market value of the acquired land at least at the rate of Rs.2000/- per acre as it being a thrashing field. Therefore, we enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- per acre and the claimant is also entitled to all statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 14.9.2010 kpr