THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO L.A.A.S. No. 349 of 2007 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) Questioning the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, in O.P. No. 2 of 1998, awarding compensation of Rs.16,000/- per acre for the acquired land as against his claim of Rs.1,60,000/-, the appellant filed the present appeal contending that the same is on the lower side and needs to be increased. The land of the appellant in an extent of Acs. 2.23 gts. in Sy. No. 272, Acs. 8.19 gts. in Sy. No. 272 and Ac. 0.09 gts. in Sy. No. 280, in all totaling an extent of Acs. 11.11 gts. situated at Miryala Revenue village, Nuthankal Mandal, was acquired by the Government by issuing notification dated 09.06.1995 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of the society. The Land Acquisition Officer, having conducted enquiry by following the procedure contemplated under the Act, passed award dated 21.10.1995, fixing the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre. The appellant having received the compensation under protest, sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Court below having considered the rival contentions, passed the judgment and decree under appeal, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.10,000/- per acre to Rs.16,000/- per acre as against his claim of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the land sold under Exs. A2 and A3-sale deeds, is very small, the transactions thereunder are genuine and they are not within the family members, but the Court below committed an error in holding that the transaction covered thereunder is within the family members. He submitted that when documents relating to large extent of land are not available, documents relating to small extents of land can be taken for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Munnalal Shivdin Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra[1], Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector[2], Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab[3] and Chaturbhuja Modi v. State of Orissa[4] and of this Court in The Land Acquisition Officer v. Shaik Bahileem[5]. He further submitted that under the transactions covered by Exs. A2 and A3, relate to the period 10 years anterior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and as such, there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve them. Under the said sale deeds, one gunta of land was sold at Rs. 400/-, and in fact, R.W.1 in his evidence admitted that land in Sy. No.461 of Miryala village, situated adjoining the acquired land was sold at Rs.30,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the acquired lands are fertile lands and before they were acquired by the Government, the appellant used to raise commercial crops, such as chillies and ground-nut etc., by making using of the well existing in the land, and they used to earn income ranging from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre. He further submitted that the acquired land is situated in Miryala village, which is a major Gram Panchayt. The village is fully developed, and the acquired land is surrounded by educational institutions, hospitals, saw-mills, rice-mills, oil-mills and other small scale industries. Considering the potentiality of the acquired land, which is useful for agricultural, residential and commercial purpose, the Court below ought to have granted compensation as prayed for by the appellant and it committed a grave error in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.10,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.16,000/- per acre. He thus prayed that the appeal be allowed, enhancing the compensation to the amount claimed by the appellant. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals supported the judgment and decree under appeal. He submitted that as Exs. A2 and A3-sale deeds relate to small extent of land and within the family members, they cannot be relied upon to fix compensation for large extents of land. Hence, he submitted that no fault can be found with the order under appeal enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.16,000/-, and the same cannot be said to be meagre warranting further enhancement in the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent- Government and perused the judgment under appeal. Admittedly, the land in question is acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections of the society. The appellant in his evidence as P.W.1 stated that the acquired land is very fertile and that before acquisition of the land by the Government, he used to raise commercial crops like groundnut, chillies etc., and used to income ranging from Rs.20,000/- per acre to Rs.30,000/- per acre. He further deposed that the acquired land is surrounded by schools, hospitals, saw-mills, dal mills etc. and is connected to the road and is situated in proximity to the village. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5, who had lands in the vicinity of the acquired land, in their evidence supported the version of the appellant and further deposed that the land is very potential and is useful for house sites. In fact, R.W.1 also in his evidence supported the version of the appellant that the acquired land is useful for house sites because it is situated by the side of the road and situated adjacent to the village and that the appellant used to earn good income by cultivating the land by raising crops by making use of the well situated in the land. He also admitted that the land in Sy. No. 461 of Miryala village, was sold at Rs.30,000/- per acre. From this evidence produced by the appellant as well as the respondent, it is clear that the land is useful both for raising crops and also for house sites. Though the appellant produced Exs. A2 and A3-sale deeds to prove the market value of the land, the fact remains, the Court below did not place any reliance because the land sold thereunder was very small and that the sale transaction was within the family members. There is no doubt that the land sold under Exs. A2 and A3 is very small, while the acquired land is very huge, and sale transactions covering small extents of land cannot be relied upon for fixing the market value of large extents of land. In the instant case, Exs. A2 and A3-sale deeds are 10 years anterior to the acquisition. This apart, there was no material placed by the respondent to show that other sale transactions covering large extents of land were available so as to discard Exs. A2 and A3 and rely upon sale deeds covering large extents of land for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. In this context, a reference be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Administrative General of West Bengal v. Collector, wherein it was held as follows: Prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for and cannot be directly adopted in valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties – the former reflects the ‘retail’ price of land and the latter the ‘wholesale’ price. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing small laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lies, and the interest on the layouts for the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. The Apex Court further in its judgment in Chaturbhuja Modi v. State of Orissa, relying on the above referred judgment held that even though the said deed involved therein did not provide an excellent comparison, but as it concerns plot in close proximity to the acquired land, the same can be relied upon with necessary caution. This Court in The Land Acquisition Officer v. Shaik Bahileem, wherein it was held that when there is no sale deed for a large area of land and where number of registered documents are not available, but only a single document of sale for a small piece of land is available and if the same is found to be genuine, then the said sale deed covering the small extent of land also can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the market value, but in doing so, sufficient deduction has to be made considering the amenities provided to the acquired land. Coming to the case on hand, Exs. A2 and A3-sale deeds relate to the period 10 years anterior to the present acquisition. Though under the said sale deeds only small extent of land was sold, the fact remains, it is the case of the appellant, which is not disputed by the respondent, that no sale transactions involving large extent of land has taken place in or about the period of acquisition. The respondent except stating that Exs. A2 and A3 are within the family members, have not produced any material to prove the same, and even if it is admitted that Exs. A2 and A3 are within the family members, in the absence of the respondent producing any positive evidence to show that the sale transactions covered under Exs. A2 and A3, was for the purpose of claiming more compensation in this case, we are of the considered opinion that there should be no reason to disbelieve them. The acquired land, as noticed earlier, was acquired for house sites, and it is situated by the side of the road and just adjacent to the village. Exs. A2 and A3 are 10 years older to the present acquisition. Exs. A2 and A3 are dated 10.07.1984, while the present acquisition took place on 09.06.1995. There might be appreciation in the market value of the land during the ten year period. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 deposed that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition is Rs.4,000/- per gunta or Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. Since the acquired land is useful for house sites, and in fact, was acquired for house sites, having regard to the judgments referred to above, 50% of the market value of the land, should be deducted towards development purposes, and so deducted, the market value of the land would come to Rs.2,000/- per gunta or Rs.80,000/- per acre. But, since the appellant has restricted his claim to Rs.80,000/- per acre, we deem it appropriate to restrict the claim of the appellant to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Accordingly, we allow the appeal enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,000/- per acre to Rs.60,000/- per acre. The appellant is entitled to all other statutory benefits. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K. S.APPA RAO, J. Dated: 26th July, 2011 KSR/YCR [1] AIR 1987 SC 1896 [2] (1988) 2 SCC 150 [3] 1995 (2) SCC 424 [4] AIR 2010 SCW 4948 [5] 1995 (2) ALT 629 (DB)