THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.Nos.391, 399 and 1291 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Since these three appeals preferred by the Government through Special Deputy Collector (LA), Singoor Project, Sangareddy, Medak District under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) arise out of the same Notification and Award, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the evidence recorded in O.P.No.35 of 1997, against which L.A.A.S.No.399 of 2005 is filed, is discussed in this judgment. Various extents of house sites and structures belonging to the claimants situated in Paladugu Village of Regode Mandal were acquired due to submergence in Singoor Project, by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and publishing the same in A.P. Gazette on 19.06.1985. The substance of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Paladugu Village on 13.06.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due procedure, passed Award No.3 of 1988, dated 10.06.1988, fixing the market value of the house site @ Rs.6/- per square meter, on the basis of the local enquiry. He awarded separate compensation for the structures on random method after taking the detailed measurements for two houses covered by the entire village. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants, who received the compensation under protest, sought to refer the matter to the Civil Court. On reference being made to the Civil Court, and on receipt of notices, the claimants appeared before the Civil Court and filed their claim statements claiming compensation @ Rs.100/- per square meter for the house sites and different amounts for the structures basing upon the structural value. To substantiate the market value, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.25 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.20 were marked. The reference Court, considering the entire material available on record, enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.6/- to Rs.8/- per square meter, and after taking into consideration the value assessed by the Private Engineer, who was examined as P.W.1 in all the O.Ps, for each house, deducted 50% of the value arrived by P.W.1 and awarded 50% for the structures. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present appeals have been filed. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals though contended that the estimations prepared by P.W.1 with regard to the structures under Ex.A.1 to A.15 cannot be taken into consideration, as the same were made nearly after 1½ year after the award is passed, but fairly conceded that no detailed estimations as such were made by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value of the structures, as fixed by him in the award. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants sought to sustain the impugned orders contending that under Exs.A.24 and A.25 similar estimations were made by the Private Engineer and the same were accepted by the Court below in O.P.Nos.57 of 1988 and 53 of 1992 while fixing the compensation, and the same has become final. He also contended that no detailed measurements were taken by the Executive Engineer during the award enquiry and therefore, no other option was left for the claimants to prepare estimation on their own in the event of the submergence of the structures in the project. He further contended that for the lands acquired in Manthur Village the enhancement was made based upon the estimations prepared by the Private Engineer and the same was confirmed by this Court by dismissing CMP No.22945 of 2009 and A.S.No.1060 of 2007, dated 04.12.2007. Therefore, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. In view of the above submissions, the only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the claimants are entitled to further enhancement based upon the estimations prepared by P.W.1 with regard to structures? P.W.1, who is the Private Engineer and who camped in Paladugu Village from 20.01.1990 to 29.01.1990, deposed that he took the measurements of each structure in the village in detail and assessed their value. He also deposed that he had relied on the standard schedule rates fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for Medak and Nizamabad Districts for the year 1987-88; that based on SSR rates lead statement and data sheet he valued the structures; and that he gathered information from the villagers about the nearest source of availability of material, for construction of the structures and after taking into consideration the source as criteria, arrived at the actual of each structure and deduced 25% of the total value towards depreciation. He further deposed that all the houses valued by him were pucca constructions and were in good condition; and that masonary construction was stone masonary with mud only, and teakwood was used and that most of the doors were panel doors with carving works. He further deposed that he assessed the value of each structure with minimum rate fixed by the Government and it is impossible to construct such structures with the cost valued by him in 1990. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not personally issue any notice to the Land Acquisition Officer before taking the measurements and that he is not an approved valuer. P.W.2, who is claimant No.5 and who is holding G.P.A for claimant Nos.2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 to 17 deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded very meager compensation to their houses, and therefore, they filed protest petition before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court, and thereafter, they got assessed the structures through P.W.1. He also deposed that in spite of issuance of notice under Exs.A.21 and A.22 through Lawyer calling upon the Land Acquisition Officer to present at the time of taking measurements by P.W.1, there was no response from the Land Acquisition Officer; that all the houses are pucca constructions constructed with stone lime mortar and teak wood with covering; and that his house was constructed 15 to 20 years prior to acquisition. He further deposed that the houses of Kallapalli, Khadirabad, Usirikpalli, Beloor etc., villages were also submerged in Singoor Project; that for the structures of Kallapalli, Khadirabad and other villages, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded very meager amount and the owners of the houses of the said villages approached the Civil Court claiming compensation on the basis of estimation prepared by them. Under Ex.A.23-certified copy of the judgment in O.P.No.57 of 1988 and Ex.A.24-certified copy of the judgment in O.P.No.53 of 1992, the Court below enhanced the compensation for the structures on the basis of the assessment made by the Private Engineer. P.W.3, a native of Kallapalli Village deposed that for the houses in Kallapalli Village submerged in Singoor Project, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded less compensation, and the Civil Court enhanced the compensation in O.P.No.57 of 1988, wherein he was claimant No.142. He further deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.33,793/- to his house, and the Civil Court enhanced it to Rs.1,41,311/- through Ex.A.22 and the said amount has been paid by the Land Acquisition Officer. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Deputy Tahsildar, Singoor Project was examined as R.W.1. He deposed that the Executive Engineer, Land Acquisition, Singoor Project placed requisition on 22.10.1982 for acquisition of village houses, huts and cattle sheds etc., including the land of Paladugu Village due to submergence in Singoor Project; that himself and the Executive Engineer inspected the structures; that under the present award 140 structures and land covered by 15,561-700 square meters was acquired; and that the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 10.06.1988. In the cross-examination, he admitted about the endorsement on Exs.A.21 and A.22 notices. R.W.2, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Singoor Project deposed that at the request of the Land Acquisition Officer, he took the measurements of the structures in detail, prepared plans of structures and estimated the value of each structure under the cover of panchanama. He further deposed that there were varieties of structures such as CT roof, country thatched roof with random rubbled missionary, thatched roof cattle sheds and tiled houses. He further deposed that as per records, the acquired houses are 10 to 15 years old on the date of acquisition and the source of material for construction of structures is shown as Plaladugu gutta, for sand it was Paladugu Vagu and lime for plastering was from Jogipet, and country wood from Zahirabad. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the value of structures was fixed on the basis of the plinth area and that except for two houses bearing Nos.1-50 and 1-51, for the rest of structures, detailed measurements and plans were not taken by the Executive Engineer and no panchanamas were conducted; that the signatures of the owners of the structures were not obtained to show that the measurements were taken in their presence and that except for two structures bearing Nos.1-50 and 1-51, the amount of depreciation or percentage allowed was not mentioned in their records. He further deposed that both the above said structures are 30 to 40 years old but a total depreciation of 35% was allowed, and out of which 10% depreciation was for not complying P.W.D standards and the remaining 25% was towards the age of the structures. From the above evidence, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken detailed measurements of the houses, which were submerged, except two houses as admitted by R.W.2. Therefore, the measurements relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot form basis for fixation of the market value. Further, when the claimants produced the estimations, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to have detailed measurement of the structures to substantiate as to how he fixed the market value of the structures. Having not done so, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot blame the claimants for claiming higher compensation, based upon estimation prepared by them through the Private Engineer since the Land Acquisition Officer failed in his duties. In view of the same, the Court below rightly taken into consideration the estimation prepared by the Private Engineer by deducting 50% of the value assessed by him. Further, we have also noticed that as per the estimation prepared by R.W.1 for the structure bearing No.1-50 under Ex.A.14, the value works out to Rs.34,450/- with 50% of the estimation prepared by P.W.1 was taken into consideration for fixation of the compensation at Rs.57,415-50 ps. i.e., less than 100% of the estimation prepared by R.W.2. This Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A-cum-Loc, Unit S.R.S.P.Pochampad v. Chinta Pandari[1] held as under: “In this connection, the observations made by Seetharamreddy, J., in Ex.A.6 judgment, which are quoted by the learned Additional District Judge in paragraph 31 of the judgment are quite apt. In this case, by reason of acquisition, the houses of the claimants have submerged in the waters of Sriramsagar Project, as a result of which the claimants have been uprooted from their original place of living and they have to support their livelihood right from scratch in a different place. Keeping in view the nature of acquisition and the human aspect involved in their rehabilitation, even assuming that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in fixing the compensation at a higher rate, we feel that this is not a fit case for interference.” Following the observation referred to above, and as per the tables shown in the awards passed by the reference Court in all the cases, enhancement of compensation for the houses is less than Rs.75,000/-, and only in a few cases it is two times or three times, and in some cases it is further more than the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, and since no detailed measurements were taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, we are of the view that the exercise made by the Court below in fixing the market value hypothetically @ 50% of the estimation prepared by P.W.1, cannot be found faulted with. We, accordingly, confirm the fixation of the market value. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 13.10.2009 va [1] 1993 ALT Supp. (1) 126 (D.B)