HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No. 2286 of 1998 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar) The Land Acquisition Officer, Karimnagar acquired Ac.1.22 guntas of wet land in S.No.1171 and 18 guntas in S.No.1179 in Veenavanka village for construction of an electricity Sub-station. The draft declaration was published on 02.08.1986. In view of the urgency, possession of the property was taken on 07.07.1985 itself. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 12.07.1988 determining the market value of the acquired property at Rs.7,360/- per acre. He placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 21.06.1985. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants got the claim referred to the Civil Court for the determination of the market value. The learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar determined the market value of the acquired property at Rs.16,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, Government preferred the present appeal. Smt.A.B.Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and Sri S.Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, appeared and advanced their submissions. The claimants placed reliance upon the evidence of three witnesses in support of their contention. PWs 1 and 2 are claimants 1 and 2. The Land Acquisition Officer however did not examine any one in support of his contention. The claimants placed reliance upon the registration extracts of the sale deeds dated 01.06.1985. Both the sale deeds are for a value of Rs.16,000/- per acre for wet and dry lands. The learned Subordinate Judge placed reliance upon Exs.A.1 and A.2 registration extracts of the sale deeds and determined the market value of the acquired property at Rs.16,000 per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer in fact referred to Exs.A.1 and A.2. However, he did not place reliance upon them on the ground that the lands covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 are partly dry and partly wet lands and that therefore could not supply correct market value of the acquired property. It may be noticed that the acquired property is wet land. The properties covered by the sale deeds under Exs.A.1 and A.2 admittedly are partly dry and partly wet lands. The market value of pure wet land would certainly be higher than the market value of lands which are partly wet and partly dry lands. Therefore, the adaptation of the value as mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.2 registration extracts of the sale deeds by the reference Court cannot be questioned by the Government. In fact, the market value of the acquired lands would definitely be more than the value as shown in Exs.A.1 and A.2 since the acquired lands are completely wet lands. It may also be pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer did not doubt the genuineness of Exs.A.1 and A.2 to suspect Exs.A.1 and A.2. The only reason furnished by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award for not accepting Exs.A.1 and A.2 is that they were in respect of dry and wet lands jointly. For the reasons already mentioned, as the value of dry and wet lands was at Rs.16,000/- per acre, the market value of the wet lands is likely to be equal if not more. The determination of the market value at Rs.16,000/- per acre by the reference Court is therefore perfectly justified and deserves to be accepted. The appeal to the extent of questioning the awarding of compensation at Rs.16,000/- per acre by the reference Court deserves to be dismissed. The reference Court however awarded interest from the date of taking possession and not from the date of award. The date of Section 4(1) notification is 02.03.1986, whereas the date on which the possession was taken was 07.07.1985, in view of the urgency of the matter. The Supreme Court has clarified that interest is payable from the date of the award and not from the date of taking possession whether possession was taken prior to or subsequent to the date of the award. The claimants therefore shall be entitled to interest from the date of the award only and not from the date of taking possession as granted by the reference Court. With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 18th January, 2011. PNV