THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.C.C.A.No.16 of 2002 Date: 28.12.2010 Between: V. Venugopal .. Appellant/ Claimant AND The Special Welfare Officer (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad District. .. Respondent/ Referring Officer THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.C.C.A.No.16 of 2002 JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad): This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2001 passed in O.P.No.260 of 1979 on the file of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Acs.3.15 guntas of land was acquired in Survey Nos.100 and 101 situated at Trimulgherry, Hyderabad Urban Taluka for the purpose of providing house sites to the scheduled caste and backward class people by the District Social Welfare Officer and by the award dated 08.03.1978, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.6/- per square yard. The appellant-claimant aggrieved by the same, sought for a reference to the Civil Court and in consequence, the reference Court took cognizance of O.P.No.260 of 1979 and enquired into it, during the course of which, it examined PW.1 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 to B.5. 3. The reference Court rendered the impugned award referring to the contentions of the claimant-appellant about the land having been developed for establishing industries or for constructing posh ultra modern houses by spending Rs.12,000/-. It also referred to the contention of the claimant that a building was constructed in one corner of the land and a well was sunk therein and an electric pump- set was installed for the purpose of cultivation by the claimant. The reference Court further referred to the claims of the claimant about the strategic location of the land acquired in the vicinity of schools, colleges, bus services, public transport etc. with all civic amenities and facilities available. The reference Court thereafter considered the just, proper and reasonable compensation to be paid for the acquired land with reference to the material on record and noted that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered only five sale transactions out of 17 sale transactions available to him and relied on the sale transactions at Sl.Nos.20 and 14 for fixing the market value at Rs.6/- per square yard. The reference Court also noted that originally the reference Court held that the claimant is not entitled to any enhancement and the matter had to be reconsidered again as per the orders of this Court in C.C.C.A.No.112 of 1985, dated 20.09.2000. The reference Court then referred to Exs.A.1 to A.4 relied on by the claimant and noted that the respective sales were for Rs.15/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.24/- per square yard under the documents and analysed the location of the lands covered by different documents. The reference Court considered the lands covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 to be not comparable. The evidence of RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were also referred to by the reference Court, observing that there was no drainage facility for the locality in question and that the land covered by Ex.B.4 was claimed to be having more amenities and potential than the acquired land. Though the land covered by Ex.B.4 is a small bit of land, observing the said land to be nearer to the acquired land as per Ex.B.5 plan, the reference Court relied on the same for arriving at the basis for assessment of the value of the acquired land at about the relevant time. As the value of the land relating to Ex.B.4 is different from the value of acquired land, the reference Court thought it appropriate to deduct 30% of the area for the purpose of laying of roads and developing the acquired land into house sites and fixed the market value at Rs.6.30 per square yard. The market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.6/- to Rs.6.30 per square yard along with other statutory benefits to the claimant. 4. The claimant challenged the said award before this Court contending that the reference Court failed to take into consideration Exs.A.1 to A.4, which reflect the then prevailing market value and when they reflected the average market value for the acquired lands situate in already developed urban area, it should have been fixed at Rs.20/- per square yard. The claimant, therefore, desired that the market value be awarded at least at Rs.15/- per square yard to justly compensate the value of the property with great commercial potentiality. 5. Sri Meher Chand Nori, learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and Sri S. Md. Haneef, Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent are heard. 6. The point for consideration is what would be the just, reasonable and adequate market value of the property acquired at about the relevant time of the related acquisition notification. 7. The acquisition of the land itself is for providing house sites to the members of weaker sections obviously indicating the suitability of the acquired land for house sites in the urban area of Hyderabad. The claimant was stating throughout about the expenditure he had incurred for making the land levelled and to install a well and an electricity pump set for the purpose of cultivation in the said land, which allegations were not denied and it is not in dispute that the recitals of Ex.B.2 show that the acquired lands have got modern civic amenities like electricity, telephone and drinking water in the locality, though it was claimed that there was no drainage facility by the time of acquisition. The location being near schools, colleges and decent residential localities was also not in dispute and the Land Acquisition Officer himself had given no valid and strong reasons for rejecting the other sales statistics except Sl.Nos.20 and 14 on which he relied. The award shows that the sales statistics are varied between Rs.7.52 ps. per square yard to Rs.17.94 ps. and the Land Acquisition Officer adopting the lowest of the values also was not shown to be based on any rational reasoning. 8. The comparison of the oral evidence also shows that though the evidence of PW.1, the claimant, is tainted with interestedness, his evidence is no way contradicted by any personal knowledge for the official witness RW.1 and even otherwise, RW.1 himself admitted that the city of Secunderabad extends beyond the acquired land by 3 to 4 KMs. Though he tried to claim that the land has no drainage facility at the relevant time, later he had to admit that he does not know whether the acquired land has got drainage and water supply facilities since about 20 years prior to the acquisition. 9. The claimant positively stated on oath that the prevailing market value at about the relevant time was Rs.40/- to Rs.50/- per square yard and none of the transactions among Exs.A.1 to A.4 was doubted by the reference Court itself. They were not considered to be not genuine or bona fide and the sales were for a value of Rs.15/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.24/- per square yard at about the relevant time under Exs.A.1 to A.4. PW.1 explained that Ex.A.1 land and acquired land are adjoining and are very nearer to each other. While Ex.A.3 land is adjoining the acquired land to the east, at least two of the lands under Exs.A.1 to A.4 are very nearer to the acquired land and Ex.B.4 transaction in respect of a very small extent of land was also for Rs.9/- per square yard. While there were no strong reasons to believe that Ex.B.4 land had better potential than the acquired land as opined by the reference Court, the mere absence of sketch map from the claimant to show the acquired land to be nearer the lands covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 than Ex.B.4 cannot straight way lead to rejection of the claims of PW.1 in this regard as his evidence about the correctness of the documents was not subjected to any serious opposition and the potentiality of the lands in question was also not rendered doubtful by anything elicited during his cross-examination. 10. Therefore, the transactions under Ex.A.1 to A.4, also could have been taken as in respect of comparable lands to arrive at the correct valuation of the acquired land and if the sales are varied between Rs.9 to Rs.24/- per square yard, the average value arrived at by and large is something nearer to Rs.15/- per square yard at about the relevant time. If the market value of the land was about Rs.15/- per square yard and if 30% of the acquired area were to be deducted towards area required for developing the said land into house sites, the probable market value of the land, from the material available on record, can safely be arrived at as Rs.10/- per square yard, while an element of guess and estimate becomes inevitable to some extent in such assumption. Thus, on the facts and circumstances, such assessment cannot be considered to be high and excessive. 11. The market value of the acquired land has to be, therefore, enhanced to Rs.10/- per square yard and the appellant- claimant should be entitled to all the consequential statutory benefits in the same manner as they were granted by the reference Court on the original enhanced compensation fixed. 12. Accordingly, the award dated 29.10.2001 in O.P.No.260 of 1979 on the file of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified by enhancing the market value of the land to Rs.10/- per square yard in respect of the subject land along with all the consequential statutory benefits to which the claimant-appellant is entitled on such market value. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part without costs. _________________ G. Bhavani Prasad, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 28.12.2010 Isn