THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos.1565, 1611, 1775, 2078, 2245, 2751 of 1999; 258 of 2000; 2347, 2355, 2356, 2357, 2652, 2653, 2320, 2346 of 2004 and 2774 of 1999 Date of Judgment: 07-04-2010 CT in A.S.No.1565 of 1999 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad ..Appellant And D.Penta Reddy ..Respondent The Court made the following Common Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos.1565, 1611, 1775, 2078, 2245, 2751 of 1999; 258 of 2000; 2347, 2355, 2356, 2357, 2652, 2653, 2320, 2346 of 2004 and 2774 of 1999 Common Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) All this batch of appeals by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) arising out of the same notification and the same award are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Facts giving rise to filing these appeals in nutshell are as under: An extent of 43.02 gts. of land situated in Sultanvalva, Kharmanghat, Jillalaguda and Beharmulguda villages in Saroornagar Mandal was acquired for formation of Inner Ring Road from Hyderabad—Vijayawada National High Way—9 to join old Kurnool Road near Santhoshnagar. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) acquiring an extent Ac.7.21 gts. was published separately in the A.P.Gazette on 24-12-1983 and award was passed separately to the said extent. For the remaining Ac.35.21 gts. of land in the above four villages, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 27-04-2003 and possession was taken on 07-07-1983. The LAO in his Award No.12/86 dated 22-09-1986 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10/- per square yard and after giving 1/3rd deduction towards developmental charges fixed the market value at Rs.6.67 ps. per square yard. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value sought for reference of the matter to the civil court and accordingly the matter was referred to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act in O.P.Nos.234, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237,238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 and 244 of 1987. The reference court by common order dated 22-01-1999 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard and after deducting 1/3rd of its value towards lay-out losses fixed the marked value at Rs.20/- per square yard. For structures the compensation fixed at 25% over and above the rate fixed by the LAO. Questioning the said common order the LAO filed A.S.Nos.1878, 1601, 1567, 1683, 1470, 1727, 1565, 1482, 1566 and 1960 of 1999 against O.P.Nos.228, 229, 233, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 242 and 243 of 1987 respectively; whereas the claimants filed A.S.Nos.2078, 1611, 2751, 2245, 2774, 1775 of 1999 and 258 of 2000 against O.P.Nos.236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 243 of 1987 respectively. This Court by common judgment dated 16-01-2001 allowed A.S.Nos.1482, 1566, 1567, 1601, 1683, 1727, 1878, 1960 and 1470 of 1999 preferred by the LAO, following the earlier judgment in A.S.Nos.938 of 1997, 1113 and 11134 of 1997 dated 12-04-1999, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the trial court to dispose of the matters afresh on the ground no sufficient reasons were given to determine the just and reasonable compensation. In view of setting aside the common order of the reference court made in O.P.Nos.234, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237,238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 and 244 of 1987 dated 22-01-1999, all the appeals filed by the claimants, which were not brought to the notice of this court, viz., 2078, 1611, 2751, 2245, 2774, 1775 of 1999 and 258 of 2000 have to be dismissed, since the impugned order was already set aside by remitting the matter to the reference court. On such remand, the reference court by common order in O.P.Nos.234, 228, 229, 235, 236, 237, 241, 242 and 243 of 1987, dated 30-12-2003 fixed the market value of the acquired land, by giving cogent reasons, at Rs.20 /- per square yard without any deductions. Questioning the same, the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority filed A.S.Nos.2355, 2356, 2652, 2355, 2357, 2346, 2347, 2320, 2653 of 2004 against O.P.Nos.234, 228, 229, 233, 235, 236, 241, 242, 243 of 1987 respectively. Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned standing counsel for HUDA contends that the civil court has not assigned any reasons for fixing the compensation at Rs.20/- per square yard which virtually relied upon Exs.C2, C3 and B4 sale deeds. Ex.C3 is a post notification sale deed i.e. one year after issuance of notification; therefore, the same cannot form basis for fixation of the market value. Further, judgment in O.P.No.167 of 1987—Ex.C4, against which A.S.Nos.113 and 114 of 1999 filed, was set aside and matter was remitted to the civil court. In view of the same, the claimants are not entitled to enhancement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants, G.Purushotham Rao, appearing in A.S.Nos.2347, 2355 of 2004 would contend that under Ex.C2—sale deed dated 30-06-1982, which is 10 months prior to issuance of notification, 285 square yards of land was sold at Rs.75/- per square yard. Even if 2/3rd is deducted, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25/- per square yard. Since the claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement, the submission that the claimants are entitled to Rs.25/- per square yard cannot be accepted. Under Ex.C3—sale deed dated 29-05-1984 an extent of 333 square yards of Sultanwala Village was sold at the rate of 30/- per square yard. Under Ex.C2—sale deed an extent of 285 square yards in Karmanghat village was sold for Rs.21,375/-, which works out to Rs.75/- per square yard. P.W.3 stated that he attested Ex.C2 document and the market value prevalent by the date of acquisition is at Rs.75/- per square yard. P.W.2 vendee under Ex.C3 document stated that he purchased the land under Ex.C3 for Rs.9,900/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard and the villages—Sultanvalva, Champapeta and Kharmanghat are adjacent to proposed ring road where Deccan College was established and the acquired land was well-developed where several residential colonies have come up; whereas the counsel for the claimants requested the Court to fix the market at Rs.30/- per square yard without deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges. Therefore, the reference court has rightly taken into consideration the sale deed covered under Ex.B4, dated 01-09-1982 where an extent of 500 square yards in Sy.Nos.311/1 and 311/2 situated at Kharmanghat village was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard; whereas the present acquisition is eight months after the sale deed under Ex.B4 dated 01-09-1982. Since it is common knowledge, to avoid higher rate of stamp duty and registration charges, the purchaser always under values the sale transaction. Therefore, Ex.B4 can form basis for fixation of the market value. The LAO, who gathered the sale statistics of three years preceding to issuance of notification, observed that only ring road is 150’ wide and starts from Old Kurnool road at a point in Sultanvalva village in revenue Sy.No.24 and passes towards eastern side through the lands at Karmanghat, Saidabad, Jillalaguda and Behramulguda villages. During 1981 all the sales effected are for housing plots in various Sy.Nos. except in a sale shown at Sl.No.18, which has been effected on acreage basis for an extent of Ac.1.17 gts. in Sy.Nos.20 and 21 for a consideration of Rs.43,000/- in February, 1981 by the Brindavan Cooperative Housing Colony and the same was sold at Rs.10/- per square yard, which are adjacent to the acquired land. Since there is time gap of two years after the sale deed under Sl.No.18, and the sale deeds at Sl.Nos.29 and 30 also go to show that the land was sold at Rs.10/- per square yard and the same can be taken into consideration for fixation of market value and after giving due deductions the reference fixed the market value at Rs.6.67ps. per square yard. Even as per the sale deeds at Sl.No.29 in Sy.Nos.180 and 181 in Karmanghat village covered under Ex.C2 discloses that the land was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard in September, 1982 and at Rs.30/- per square yard in February, 1983 prior to issuance of notification in Karmanghat village. It is now fairly well settled that highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by Government should be preferred to the rest unless strong circumstances justifying a different course. [See RANEE OF VUYYUR v. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS 1969 (1) An.W.R. 45 (SC)] Keeping in view of the same, the market value fixed by the reference court at Rs.20/- per square yard after deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges, lay out losses etc. is quite reasonable. Accordingly, we confirm the market value fixed by the reference court at Rs.20/- per square yard. Further, as the entire land adjacent to the road was acquired for formation of ring road of 150’ wide, further lay out loss does not arise. In view of the same, we do not see any merit in the appeals preferred by the LAO. Similarly, the appeals filed by the claimants, seeking further enhancement, do not merit consideration. In the result, the appeals filed by the LAO as well as the claimants are dismissed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J. 07-04-2010 Murthy