IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO A.S. Nos.3857/2000 and 1206/2001 LAASMP No.330/2006; CMP No.6965/2004; CMP(SR) No.20479/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20478/2004; CMP NO.6964/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20475/2004; CMP(SR) No.20476/2004; ASMP NO.12257/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20472/2004 IN AS NO.3857/2000 DT. 19–10-2011 AS NO.3857/2000: Between: The Sub-Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Narsipatnam. … Appellant And 1. Jagani Gangamma and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. Nos.3857/2000 and 1206/2001 LAASMP No.330/2006; CMP No.6965/2004; CMP(SR) No.20479/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20478/2004; CMP NO.6964/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20475/2004; CMP(SR) No.20476/2004; ASMP NO.12257/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20472/2004 IN AS NO.3857/2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) AS No.3857/2000 by the Sub-Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Narsipatnam, and AS No.1206/2001 by the claimants arise out of one and the same order dt. 21-3-1996 passed in OP No.248/1988. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. AS No.3857/2000 is filed questioning the award of compensation, whereas AS No.1206/2001 is filed for enhancement of the compensation. The Government filed appeal on 7-4-1998. The appellant in AS No.3857/2000 filed LAASMP No.330/2006 filed to bring the proposed legal representatives of the deceased ninth respondent on record. In which, notice to the proposed legal representatives was ordered on 31-1-2006 and the petitioner/appellant was permitted to take out notice. Similarly, the Government filed ASMP No.12257/2004 to condone the delay of 2683 days in filing petitions to set-aside the abatement caused due to the death of ninth respondent and also to bring the legal representatives of the ninth respondent on record; ASMP No. 6964/2004 to condone the delay of 1969 in filing petitions to set-aside the abatement caused due to the death of seventh respondent and also to bring the legal representatives of the seventh respondent on record; and ASMP No.6965/2004 is filed to condone the delay of 2112 days in filing petitions to set-aside abatement caused due to the death of respondent No.5 and to bring the legal representatives of R-5 on record. But no notice has been ordered in the above petitions ie., ASMP Nos.12257, 6964 and 6965 of 2004 till now. In the process, the appeal, AS No.3857/2000, has already been dismissed against them ie., R-9, R-7 and R-5 as abated. Since the appeal stood abated against some of the respondents/claimants, now the appeal abates against all as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in PAPANNA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA[1]. In view of the same, CMP No.6965/2004; CMP NO.6964/2004; and ASMP NO.12257/2004 are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, LAASMP No.330/2006; CMP(SR) No.20479/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20478/2004; CMP (SR) NO.20475/2004; CMP(SR) No.20476/2004; and CMP (SR) NO.20472/2004 shall stand dismissed. Even the abatement of the appeal in respect of one or other of the respondent cannot by itself result in the abatement of the appeal in its entirety as held by the Supreme Court in S.AMARJITSINGH KALRA (DEAD) V. PRAMOD GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS[2]. In view of the same, we proceeded to hear the appeal filed by the Government in spite of the fact that appeal against some of the respondent/claimants was abated. An extent of Ac.8-90 cents of land, in various survey numbers, situate in the village of Madugula was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the backward and economically backward community people by publishing the substance of the draft notice issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in the Visakahapatnam District Gazette (Special Supplement) dt. 14-3-1985 by invoking urgency clause under Sec. 17(4) of the Act dispensing with Sec. 5-A enquiry. The notification was published in daily news paper, Andhra Prabha on 25-4-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the formalities passed an award being award No. 3/85-86/SW dt. 24-3-1986 fixing the market value at Rs.9000/- per acre with statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for a reference to the Civil Court for due determination of the compensation. On reference being made to the Civil Court, the claimants filed claim statement seeking compensation at Rs.50/- per sq.yard. On behalf of the claimants, the claimants have examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.A-1 to A-15. Ex.A-1 is the registration extract of sale deed dt. 7-6- 1985. Ex.A-2 is the notice issued under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the Act. Exs.A-3 to 13 are the claim statements of the claimants filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. On behalf of the referring officer, no witness was examined but Ex.B-1- award copy was marked. Ex.X-1 was marked through P.W.3 and Exs.X-2 and X-2/relevant entries in Basic Value Register, were marked though P.W.6. The reference court on considering the oral and documentary evidence, adduced before it, enhanced the market value from Rs.9,000/- per acre to Rs.25/- per sq.yard with all statutory benefits. Questioning the enhancement and seeking enhancement, the Government filed AS No.3857/2000 and claimants filed AS No.1206/2001 respectively. The claimant No.6 himself examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 purchased 704 sq.yards from P.W.1 under a sale deed covered under Ex.A-1. According to P.W.1, to the East of the acquired land, there is a road which leads from Madugula to Anakapalli. Opposite to the acquired land, on the other side of the road, Douglas Memorial Hostel is situated. To the south of the acquired land, panchayat pump house and electrical sub-station are situated, which shows that the acquired land has potentials for house sites, where several colonies have come up. According to P.W.1, to the north their land, Teachers’ colony is situated and to the further north Class IV employees colony is situated, and further North of the said IV class employees colony, police station and post office are situated. From the evidence of P.W.1, it was clearly established that the acquired land is situated in a well developed area and all civic amenities have been provided to the nearby lands of the acquired land. P.W.2 deposed that he purchased land from P.W.1 under a registered sale deed covered under Ex.A-1 at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.yard. The evidence of P.W.2 further discloses that to the north their land, 4th class employees colony is situated and in between their site and the said employees colony there is only one road intervening. His (P.W.2) evidence further reveals that to the East of the acquired land, there is one Government Hostel, post office, police station and St.Anns Hospital are situated at a distance of 60 yards away form the acquired land and RTC complex about one and half furlongs. P.W.3 deposed that at a distance of 100 yards away from the acquired land, Zilla Parishad High School, and private hospital are situated. P.W.5 deposed that to the west of the acquired land, their land is situated and his house is also situated in their land and his house is RCC roofed house. Therefore, it was clinchingly established that on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, adjacent to the acquired land, residential colonies have come up. No contra evidence has been adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to show that Ex.A-1 was got up sale deed to claim higher compensation. To prove the sale transaction covered under Ex.A-1, the claimants got examined P.W.6 who is working as Junior Assistant in Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madugula. Through him Exs.X-2 and X-3 were marked. He categorically deposed that as per Exs.X-2 and X-3 the market value of the site situated in S.Nos.196 and 200 was at Rs.25/- per sq.yard. He further deposed that from 1-5-1986 onwards the value of the land was enhanced to Rs.30/- per sq.yard and from 1-5-1987 the value of the land was enhanced to Rs.50/- per sq.yard. In view of the same, the claimants cannot claim compensation at Rs.50/- per sq.yard as per the basic valuation register as the same ie., Rs.50/- was fixed subsequent to the date of acquisition. The basic valuation register per se cannot be taken into consideration to fix the market value but it can be taken as corroborative evidence to prove the sale transaction covered under Ex.A-1. Basic valuation register maintained by the registration authority for collection of stamp duty has no statutory base or force to determine the market value (See: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. JASTI ROHINI=(1995) 1 SCC 717; and JAWAJEE NAGNATHAM Vs REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH=(1994) 4 SCC 595). A perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, we are of the opinion that the sale deed covered under Ex.A-1 was not got up and the same was registered in normal course and stamp duty was paid thereon as per basic value fixed. Once the fixation of market value has become final against some of the respondents on dismissal of the appeal preferred by the State as abated against them, other claimants are also entitled to the same market value as has been fixed in respect of other claimants covered under the same notification. Therefore, we are not inclined to deduct 1/3rd towards developmental charges from out of the compensation fixed at yardage basis. We accordingly confirm the fixation of market value by the reference court, which was fixed based on the evidence adduced by the parties, and the said market value reflects the correct and true market value as on the date of issuance of notification. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J Dt. 19–10-2011 KMR [1] (1996) 1 SCC 291 [2] 2003(3) SCC 272