THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. Nos. 390 of 2005 and 476 of 2006 Dated: 13.10.2009 L.A.A.S. No.390 of 2005 Between: The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Through Special Deputy Collector (LA), Singoor Project, Sangareddy, Medak District. .. Appellant/Respondent AND Kalali Eswaraiah and others. .. Respondents/Claimants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. Nos. 390 of 2005 and 476 of 2006 Common Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Since these two appeals arise out of the same notification and award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. These two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Singoor Project, Sangareddy, Medak District, are directed questioning the enhancement of the compensation by the Senior Civil judge, Medak, in O.P. No.48 of 1996, dated 22.04.2002 and in O.P. No.49 of 1996, dated 23.04.2002 respectively. On a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Land Acquisition, Construction Division No.3, Sangareddy, for acquisition of village sites/structures consisting of houses, huts and cattle sheds, public wells and open house plots etc., situated at Khadirabad village, Regode Mandal, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which were approved by the government in G.O. Rt. No.511, Irrigation and GAD (PWD) Department, dated 08.06.1989, were published in newspapers on 02.09.1989 and 06.09.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure contemplated and after issuing notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, passed an award on 05.12.1990, in award proceedings No.B/246/89, fixing the market value of the house sites at Rs.6/- per sq. meter and for the structures as estimated by the Executive Engineer. The claimants, who have not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at Rs.100/- per sq. meter for the acquired land and enhance the compensation for the structures as per the estimations prepared by PW.1. On a reference being made to the Civil Court, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-117 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 was marked. The lower Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.8/- per sq. meter and the value for structures at 50% of the estimations made by PW.1 with all statutory benefits. Questioning the enhancement, the present appeals have been filed. The learned Government Pleader has seriously contended that since the estimation prepared by PW.1 is not through the Court, the same cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value, and that even if the value for structures at 50% of the estimations made by PW.1 is taken into consideration, it is three to five times more than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. But, he fairly conceded that awarding of Rs.8-/ per sq. meter for the land acquired is reasonable. Learned counsel for the respondents brought to our notice that against the orders in O.P. No.44 of 1997, in respect of the estimation prepared for the structures in Manthur village, A.S. No.1060 of 2007 was filed with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and this Court, while condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal upholding the fixation of the market value for structures at 50% of the estimations made by PW.1 and the same has become final and no further appeal has been preferred. In view of the same, the claimants in the present OPs are entitled to the same compensation at 50% of the estimation made by PW.1 and there should be uniformity in fixation of the market value. Learned Government Pleader has fairly conceded that the order in A.S. No.1060 of 2007 has become final and that the Executive Engineer, who prepared the estimation for the structures, admitted that he has not taken the measurements of each and every construction except for five structures and the remaining structures were valued at random measurements basing on the measurements taken for five structures. It is the responsibility of the Land Acquisition Officer to correctly obtain the measurements for enabling to fix the market value, and he failed in his duty to obtain correct measurements to ascertain the value of the constructions and fixed the compensation in a random method for number of structures on the basis of five structures, which cannot be a basis for fixation of the market value, where the measurements are not obtained. It is also not disputed that in O.P. Nos.53 of 1992 and 57 of 1988 for the villages of Kallpalli and Khadirabad, the lower Court has taken into consideration 50% of the value of the structures so assessed by the private valuer and enhanced the compensation. The orders passed thereon have become final and against which no appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer and the entire amount has been deposited in respect of the said villages, which were acquired along with the houses of the present villages. So, we have no doubt in our mind that the value assessed by the private valuer, after the award was passed, cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value, but since the Land Acquisition Officer abdicated his duties and not assessed the market value as required under the Act, there is no other option for the claimants except to get the valuation done through a private valuer, and since in other OPs the valuation assessed by the private valuer has been approved and since A.S. No.1060 of 2007 of the same village also has been dismissed by this Court, we, accordingly, dismiss the appeals confirming the enhancement made by the lower Court as an exceptional case, but the same cannot be treated as a precedent that the value assessed by the private valuer can be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value, except when such assessment was done prior to passing of award and produced before the Land Acquisition Officer and made as evidence to contradict the assessment made by the Deputy Engineer from whom the estimation was called for by the Land Acquisition Officer. But the same cannot be taken in evidence in future cases. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 13.10.2009 Nsr