HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.No.455/2006, LAAS(SR) No.16438/2006 and LAASMP No.1092/2008 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) LAASMP No.1092/2008 is filed to condone the delay of 33 days in filing LAAS (SR) No.16438/2006. For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LAASMP No.1092/2008 is accordingly allowed. These two appeals, LAAS No.455/2006 by the claimant and LAAS(SR) No.16438/2006 by the Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer, Manopad, Mahaboobnagar District are directed against order of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal dt. 21-3-2006 passed in OP No.697/1995. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. An extent of Ac.8-08 cents of land situate at Pullur village, belonging to the appellant in LAAS No.455/2006 and respondent in LAAS(SR) No.16438/2006, was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society by issuing a draft notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) dt. 15-1-1983. After completing all the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award being award No.6/1984 dt. 18-2- 1984 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,500/- per acre. The claimant having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value sought for a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court by filing protest application claiming compensation at Rs.35,000/- per acre. On reference being made, the claimant filed a claim statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.yard. The Land Acquisition Officer filed a counter opposing the claim contending that the claimant claimed Rs.35,000/- during the award proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, and therefore he is not entitled to any enhancement. To prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 apart from examining three witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 15. On behalf of the respondent, Land Acquisition Officer himself examined as R.W.1 and award copy was marked as Ex.B-1. The reference court by the impugned award though concluded that the market value of the acquired land was at Rs.60,000/- per acre as on the date of notification considering Ex.A-4, since the claimant claimed Rs.35,000/- per acre during the award proceedings, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.35,000/- per acre holding that it cannot assess the market value of the acquired land more than the claim made by the claimant basing on some comparable sales or transactions and there is no necessity to assess the market value in the light of Exs. A-1 to A-15 filed by the claimant. Hence, the claimant filed LAAS No.455/2006 seeking compensation at Rs.23/- per sq.yard instead of Rs.100/- per sq.yard claimed before the reference court, and against the enhancement of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer filed LAAS(SR) No.16438/2006. Sri C.B.Rama Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant in LAAS No.455/2006 and respondent-claimant in LAAS (SR) No.16438/2006 strenuously contended that in view of the amendment made to Sec. 25 of the Act removing the embargo in awarding more compensation than what was claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference court is not justified in fixing the market value at Rs.35,000/- per acre as claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer while filing protest application. He further contended that once the reference court concluded that the market value of the acquired land would be around Rs.60,000/- per acre, it is not justified in restricting the claim to Rs.35,000/- per acre, and therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 50/- per sq.yard, but claimant is restricted to his claim to Rs.23/- per sq.yard and the same may be awarded. Learned Government pleader for the appellant in LAAS(SR) No.16438/2006 and respondent in LAAS No.455/2006 contended that sale transaction covered under Ex.A-2-sale deed is a post notification sale and same cannot form the basis for fixing the market value and Exs.A-4 to A-10 pertain to different villages and compensation fixed therein cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land in question. The claimant himself examined as P.W.1.He deposed that bridge Thugnabadra separates Kurnool town from Pullur village, where acquired land is situated. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the acquired land is surrounded by petrol pump, factories, Rayalaseema Paper Mills etc., Under Ex.A-1 sale deed dt. 16-8-1982, which is five months prior to issuance of present notification dt. 15-1- 1983, an extent of 891 sq.yards in S.No.251, nearer to the acquired land, was sold at Rs.14000/-, which works out to Rs. 15/- per sq.yard. Ex.A-2-sale deed dt.8-9-1983 is a post-notification sale deed, which is 8 months after issuance of notification. Therefore, the same cannot form the basis for fixation of the market value. Further, the compensation fixed for the lands acquired at Pallepad village by the reference court in OP No.360/90, covered under Ex.A-4, at Rs.15/- per sq.meter was confirmed by the High Court in AS No.1370/1996. Similarly, the compensation fixed for the lands acquired at Alampur village by the reference court in OP No.334/81 covered under Ex.A-5 at Rs.20/- was confirmed by this court in AS No.3277/1984 covered under Ex.A-6. Special leave petition against the orders passed in AS No.3277/1984 has been dismissed by SLP No.11952/84 dt. 21-2-1991 covered under Ex.A-7. Similarly, the compensation fixed for the lands situated at Moramunugala at Rs.45/- per sq.meter by the reference court in OP No.1005/84 covered under Ex.A-8 has been confirmed by this court in AS No.1903/81 covered under Ex.A-9. The compensation fixed at Rs.20/- per sq.meter for the lands acquired at Kudavelly village was fixed by this court in AS No.252/85. R.W.1 in his evidence admitted that Pullur village is adjacent to NH 7 and having commercial and industrial establishments. Pallepad is one of the village in Manopad Mandal, which is nearby Krishna river and 10 KMs from National Highway No.7 and 50 KMs from Kurnool town. He also admitted that the lands situate at Pallepad village were acquired for the purpose of house sites and the compensation fixed at Rs.15/- per sq.meter was also confirmed by this court. Basing on the documents produced by the claimant, the reference court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land would be around Rs.60000/- per acre as on the date of notification. The evidence of R.W.1 would clearly show that Pullur village is having commercial and housing potentiality and it is near to Kurnool town. In view of the abundant evidence, the reference court though concluded that the market value of the acquired land would be around Rs.60,000/- per acre, was justified in fixing the compensation at Rs.35,000/- per acre on the ground that the claimant claimed compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer by way of protest petition at Rs.35000/. No infirmity is discernible from the said conclusion reached by the reference court in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-DSWO V. B.V.REDDY AND SONS[1], wherein it was held that amending provision of Sec.25 of the Act would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent to 24-9-1984, the date on which Ac. 68 of 1984 came into force. Since the land was acquired prior to the said date, the claimant cannot claim more compensation than what is claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer by taking benefit of the amending provision of Sec. 25 of the Act. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the reference court fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.35,000/- per acre warranting our interference. Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the reference court. It is needles to state that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits as per law declared by the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India[2]. No order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Date: 14-9-2008 kmr [1] AIR 2002 SC 1045=(2002) 3 SCC 463 [2] AIR 2001 SC 3516