IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND (2ND) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2542 of 1999 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer Sub Collector, Rajahmundry … Appellant And: Manyam Kesava Rao & 2 others … Respondents-claimants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2542 of 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, J) The Land Acquisition Officer-Sub Collector, Rajahmundry, filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 assailing the correctness of the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, passed in OP No.92 of 1989, dated 19.03.1999. 2. An extent of Ac.15.95 cents of land in Sy.No.85/1 of Mundeswarapuram, Korukonda Taluk belonging to the respondents/ claimants was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the Act’] was published in the Gazette on 19.03.1979. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the formalities passed award No.4/81 dated 31.01.1981 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The claimants, having not been satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought reference to the Civil Court and the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the compensation payable to the claimants’ land. They filed W.P.No.1346 of 1984 and this Court by order dated 12.02.1996 directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Pursuant to the same, when the matter was referred to the Civil Court, the Civil Court received reference and issued notices to the respondents. Pursuant to the said notices, the respondents-claimants appeared and filed written statements claiming compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre, apart from separate compensation for the wells. 3. To prove the market value of the acquired land, PWs.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. 4. The first claimant examined himself as PW.1. PW.2 is the vendor under Ex.A.1 sale deed, and PW.3 is the vendee under Ex.A.3 sale deed. Under Ex.A.1 sale deed, an extent of 484 square yards of site in Sy.No.103/1 was sold. 484 square yards was sold approximately at Rs.8.25 per square yard. The Land Acquisition Officer, relied on Ex.B.2 sale deed dated 21.07.1976 and to prove the same, he examined RW.2 who was one of the purchaser, who deposed that any type of garden can be raised in the land purchased by him under Ex.B.2 and in the year 1981 - 1982, his brothers sold away the land for Rs.52,000/- and the acquired land is higher in level and it can be converted into house sites without raising the level. His evidence also supports the evidence of PW.1 about the potentialities to use the acquired land as house sites. The lower Court after taking into consideration of the sale transaction under Ex.A.1 and other sale deeds and after due deduction of 40% towards development charges, arrived the market value at Rs.24,000/- per acre and as one of the claimants claimed only Rs.10,000/- per acre, he fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre. 5. The learned Government Pleader contended that when larger extent of Ac.15.95 cents of the land was acquired, the value of the smaller extent of land cannot be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. He further contended that the land under Ex.A.1 is not similar in nature in respect of fertility and advantages and therefore, it cannot be taken into account to fix the market value. 6. It is not disputed that the necessary deductions were already given by the Civil Court. The claimants examined PW.2 to prove the consideration under Ex.A.1, which clearly shows that it is a genuine transaction, and not brought into existence to get more market value. The lower Court after considering the same, deducted 40% towards developmental activities, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per acre as claimed by the claimants, even though the claimants are entitled for more compensation considering the market value as fixed under Ex.A.1 sale deed, which is reasonable. We do not find any merits in the appeal and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.03.2010 bss