HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Appeal Suit No.900 of 1998 Date: 22-11-2011 Between The Land Acquisition Officer cum Tahsildar, Jadcherla … Appellant/Referring Officer and B.Venkat Reddy and 7 others … Respondents/Claimants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Appeal Suit No.900 of 1998 Judgment: (per V.Eswaraiah, J.) Though the 5th respondent was not served for want of detailed and correct postal address, the appeal is taken up for disposal on merits. 2. This appeal is filed against the order and decree, dated 07-6- 1993 in O.P.No.260 of 1984 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar district (for short ‘the reference Court’). 3. The appellant herein is the Land Acquisition Officer cum Tahsildar, Jadcherla. The lands of the respondents-claimants to an extent of Ac.1-12 cts. in Survey No.670 of Janampet village, Mahaboobnagar district, were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) published on 21-12-1983. The award was passed on 24-01-1984 by the LAO awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per acre. On reference, the reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per square yard after deducting 1/5th of the land towards amenities and other developmental activities. Aggrieved by the order of the reference Court, this appeal is filed by the LAO. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the appellant-LAO and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and perused the order under appeal. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the reference Court ought not to have relied on Ex.X-1 registered sale deed, dated 16-5-1982, under which a small piece of land was sold and there is no evidence whatsoever that the acquired lands are similar for fixing the market value as covered by Ex.X-1 and there is difference in the nature, fertility and potentiality between the land sold under Ex.X-1 and the acquired lands. 6. In the instant case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 and X-1 were marked. But, no one was examined on behalf of the LAO except marking copy of the award as Ex.B-1. 7. Ex.X-1 is the registered sale deed dated 16-5-1982 and the seller and purchaser of the land under Ex.X-1 were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, respectively. Ex.X-1 sale deed relates to the sale of 933 sq. yards of house site at the rate of Rs.5/- per square yard. As there are no other sale transactions in the said village, though Ex.X-1 sale deed relates to the year 1982 i.e. after issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, having regard to the said fact, the reference Court has rightly taken into consideration the value of the land mentioned in Ex.X-1 sale deed as a guiding principle, but, however, deducted 1/5th extent of the acquired land towards developmental purposes as the land sold under Ex.X-1 sale deed also is useful for house sites as well as the acquired land were admittedly acquired for house sites. After deducting 1/5th extent of the land from out of the acquired lands, the compensation was awarded by the reference Court for the remaining land at the rate of Rs.4/- per square yard, which cannot be said that, if 1/5th extent of the land is not deducted it amounts to deducting 1/5th amount from out of Rs.4/- per square yard. But, however, instead of deducting 1/5th amount of Rs.4/- , the reference Court deducted 1/5th extent of the land. 8. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the compensation fixed by the reference Court enhancing the compensation for the acquired lands from Rs.1,500/- per acre to Rs.4/- per square yard (i.e. Rs.17,348/-) cannot be said to be excessive and exorbitant. We are of the further opinion that the said compensation is just. We do not see any merits to interfere with the order of the reference Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the order under appeal. No costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 22nd November, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Appeal Suit No.900 of 1998 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by VE, J.) 22nd November, 2011. (Ak)