THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No. 256 of 1998 J U D G M E N T: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tungathurthy is the appellant. He filed this Appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Suryapet in O.P. No. 15 of 1992, dated 25.08.1993, whereby and whereunder the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.44,000/- per acre. The brief facts of the case are as follows: A vast extent of land belonging to the respondents, admeasuring Ac.4.20 guntas in Survey No. 250/2, situated at Karvirala, H/o Kothagudem Village, Thungathurthy Mandal was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections, by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into account and considering the sale transactions that took place in the vicinity of the land in question, passed an award dated 31.03.1992, fixing the compensation at Rs. 12,500/- per acre. The claimant protested the award and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act to the civil Court for proper determination of the compensation for the land in question. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, Suryapet, the claimants have adduced both oral and documentary evidence. They have examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A1 to A4. Exs.A2 and A3 are the registered sale deeds prior to the date of present notification, whereunder the land was sold at Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/- per gunta. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 Award proceedings was marked. The reference Court, after taking into account and consideration the location of the lands and its potentiality, as well as the sale deeds Exs.A2 and A3, enhanced the compensation to Rs.44,000/- per acre. On the ground that the said enhancement is exorbitant, the Land Acquisition Officer filed the present Appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj vehemently contended that the reference Court enhanced the compensation, without any basis and without making the deductions in accordance with the ratio laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court. We have perused the order under appeal. The claimants, in support of their claim, examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 sold Ac.0.02 guntas of land in Survey No. 149 to one Changanti Veeraiah at Rs.2,500/- per gunta, which comes to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, under a registered sale deed Ex.A2, dated 13.11.1990. P.W.3 purchased Ac.0.02 guntas of land in Survey No.304 from Vardheli Rajaiah at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per gunta, which comes to Rs.80,000/- per acre, under Ex.A3 registered sale deed dated 06.11.1990. Both these sale transactions are prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, in the present case. The learned Judge placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam v. K. Ramayyamma[1], wherein it has been held that while fixing the market value of the acquired land when compared with the smaller sites, necessary deductions should be made for providing roads and civil amenities and such deductions may vary from 20 to 33% depending upon nature of the lands, its situation and the stage of development, held that the land in question is a potential land and it has all facilities like schools, electricity, primary health center and buses and thus, enhanced the compensation to Rs.44,000/- per acre. Admittedly, Exs.A2 and A3 are of pre-notification sale deeds and they belong to very small extent of land, but however, the learned Judge, after making proper deductions, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 44,000/- per acre, which, in our opinion, does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the Award. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 22nd December 2009 ksld [1] AIR 1985 AP 118