IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO APPEAL SUIT Nos. 2401 of 2001, 590 and 1219 of 2002 A.S.No.2401 of 2001 Between: Jeedimetla Upendramma and another … Appellants And The Land Acquisition Officer, (Revenue Divisional Officer), Bhongir and others … Respondents A.S.No.590 of 2002 Between: Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Bhongir. … Appellant And Jeedimetla Upendramma and others … Respondents A.S.No.1219 of 2002 Between: D.Kondal Reddy and others … Appellants And The land Acquisition Officer and others … Respondents This court made the following:- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO APPEAL SUIT Nos. 2401 of 2001, 1219 and 590 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) All these appeals by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer, are directed against the very same order, dated 03.07.2001, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.P.No.10 of 1996, were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. An extent of Ac.11-27¾ guntas belonging to the claimants, in survey Nos.387, 389/1, 389/1/2, 389/1/3, 389/1/4 and 390/1/2 and two wells situated at Saidapur village of Yadagirigutta Mandal were acquired for the purpose of supplying drinking water to the pilgrims of Laxminarsimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, by publishing the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) in the Gazette on 17.02.1992. The possession of the land was taken on 16.10.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the due formalities, by his award-Ex.B1, dated 10.06.1994, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.5,000/- per acre, Rs.51,400/- for the well in survey No.388 and Rs.64,200/- for the well in survey No.390. 3. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, the claimants sought for a reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On such reference being made to the civil Court, the civil Court numbered the same as O.P.No.10 of 1996 and issued notices. On receipt of notices, claimants 1 and 2/appellants in A.S.No.2401 of 2001, filed separate claim petition claiming compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for the acquired lands, Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the well and Rs.5,000/- towards value of the trees. 4. Since claimant No.5 died, his LRs-claimant Nos.8 to 12, were brought on record. Claimant No.3 filed separate claim petition, which was adopted by claimant Nos.4, 6 to 12, claiming that the entire land is nearer to the pilgrim village of Yadagirigutta and fetching Rs.70,000/- per acre as on the date of acquisition and the market value is Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. As there is a heavy demand for the lands due to the fast growth around the temple, they claimed compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 5. Since the burden lies on the claimants to establish the market value, the 3rd claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and four more witnesses were examined on their behalf as P.Ws.2 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A3-certified copy of the registered sale deeds, were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Senior Assistant of Sub-Collector’s Office, Bhongir was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1-award proceedings, dated 10.06.1994, and Ex.B2 – Award (form-8), dated 10.06.1994, were marked. 6. The reference Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.10,000/- per acre i.e., Rs.5,000/- over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, with all statutory benefits. 7. Seeking further enhancement, claimant Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.2401 of 2001, claimant Nos.3, 4, 6 to 12 filed A.S.No.1219 of 2002, restricting their claims to Rs.80,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre respectively. Questioning the enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer filed A.S.No.590 of 2002. 8. Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in A.S.No.2401 of 2001, contends that having held that the claimants are able to establish the sale deeds under Exs.A1 to A3 and the suggestion made by the Land Acquisition Officer will not render to establish that Exs.A1 to A3 are manipulated documents and having gave a finding that the acquiring of the lands and digging of bore wells is for the purpose of supplying water to the Devastanam; that the suit lands are nearer to the Devastanam and there is a potentiality in the acquired lands due to the rapid development, the reference court ought to have enhanced the compensation as claimed by the claimants. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would contend that under Exs.A1 to A3 sale deeds, which are brought up documents, small extent of lands were sold and hence, the same cannot form the basis for fixation of the market value. As the land is more than 9 K.Ms., away from Devasthanam, which was kept under fallow, and as the claimants have not established about the cultivation of the crops, they are not entitled to any enhancement. 10. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is: What is the true market value for which the claimants are entitled for the acquired lands? P O I N T : - 11. The 3rd claimant, who examined himself as P.W.1, stated that they used to cultivate the lands with the help of agricultural well by fixing electric motor. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 got their own separate well and they used to raise chillies, cotton, paddy and vegetables in the acquired lands. In the year 1992 Government acquired two guntas of land for digging a bore well for supply of water to Yadagirigutta temple. Due to the digging of bore well and pumping of the water to the Devasthanam, their agricultural wells were dried up. The Land Acquisition Officer passed separate award for the said two guntas fixing the compensation at Rs.5,000/- per acre and thereafter acquired the remaining Ac.11-20 guntas of land including two agricultural wells, for which separate compensation is awarded. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 03.03.1986, executed by one Vital Reddy-P.W.2 in favour of Narasimha Reddy out of survey No.390, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1986, executed by K.Buchireddy-P.W.3 in favour of Anji Reddy to an extent of Ac.0-06 guntas in survey No.390 for a consideration of Rs.12/- per square yard and Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed by one Shaganti Narsaiah and others in favour of Laxminarsimha Swamy poultry at Rs.65,000/- per acre. The acquired lands are very near to Yadagirigutta Laxminarasimha Swamy Temple and in the vicinity of the acquired lands, there are several poultry forms, R.T.C.Bus depots, Junior colleges, etc. P.W.2, who is the vendor under Ex.A1, deposed that he has got Ac.4-00 guntas of dry-cum-wet land cultivated with the help of agricultural well and used to get net income of Rs.30,000/- per crop on cotton and Rs.15,000/- on chillies and Rs.10,000/- on paddy. His land and the acquired lands are similar in nature and fertility. He sold one gunta of land out of survey No.390 to V.Narasimha Reddy at Rs.1,500/- per gunta through registered sale deed about 14 years back and after purchase, Narasimha Reddy established the Dhaba hotel and has been running the same as on the date of acquisition. P.W.3, who also owns Ac.4-00 guntas of land in survey No.390, corroborated the evidence of P.W.2, stating that he sold the land in survey No.390 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- through registered sale deed about 14 or 15 years back. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1986. P.W.4, who purchased the land covered under Ex.A2, deposed that he purchased the lands in survey Nos.27 and 28 admeasuring Ac.3-00 at Rs.8/- per square yard from original pattadar Shankaraiah and Bixapathy through registered sale deeds and constructed sheds for the poultry farms on the purchased land and he is one of the directors of Laxminarsimha Swamy Poultry at Saidapur Village. Apart from the said Ac.3-00, they have also purchased Ac.7-00 for cultivation purpose in the same survey number and dug bore wells and raising Cotton, Paddy, Mirchi and getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per crop per acre on cotton and Rs.10,000/- on Mirchi and Rs.10,000/- on Chillies. P.W.5, who owns a land in survey Nos.292 and 293 of Saidapur village which is nearby acquired lands, deposed that on the roadside near acquired lands several Dhaba hotels and shopping complexes were also established, as such the land value is increasing day by day. Saidapur village is 3 K.Ms away from Yadagirigutta and is extending towards Yadagirigutta and a thar road was laid from their village to Yadagirigutta about 19 years back. 12. Against the above evidence of the claimants, R.W.1, the Senior Assistant of Sub-Collector’s office was examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, to testify the acquisition of the lands to Yadagirigutta Devasthanam in the year 1994 and after obtaining the consent of the landowners for the said acquisition the impugned notification has been issued. 13. Admittedly, the acquisition for two guntas of land by the Government took place in the year 1992 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded separate compensation at Rs.5,000/- per acre in respect of the said land and the same is subject matter of O.P.No.8 of 1993. Aggrieved by the fixation of the market value by the reference Court in the said O.P., the Land Acquisition Officer preferred A.S.No.2630 of 2001. This Court by order, dated 23.06.2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the fixation of the market value by the reference Court. 14. The evidence adduced by the claimants also establishes that they dug two wells, obtained electricity connection for the wells and separate compensation for the bore wells is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which itself shows that the wells were in use as on the date of acquisition and the very fact that the lands were acquired for providing water supply to the Devasthanam also shows that there is such plenty of water available in the lands so acquired. Under Ex.A1 sale deed, one gunta of land was sold on 03.03.1986 by P.W.2, where a Dhaba hotel was established. Though the land covered by Ex.A1 is a small extent, it can be taken into consideration, as to the potentiality of the land, which is useful for commercial purpose, since the purchaser established a Dhaba hotel and doing business. Six guntas of land is subject matter of Ex.A2, which is also six years prior to the notification. Even if Exs.A1 and A2 are discarded, Ex.A3 was executed three years prior to the notification, wherein Ac.3-02 guntas of land was sold for Rs.1,81,000/-, which approximately works out to Rs.60,000/- per acre and the same can safely be taken as a comparable sale for fixing the market value of the acquired lands with due escalation at 10% per annum. 15. Keeping in view of the all the above circumstances, we are of the opinion, that the sale deed covered by Ex.A3, which is three years prior to the issuance of the notification, can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. Accordingly, we fix the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.70,000/- per acre, as against the claim of Rs.80,000/- claimed by claimant Nos.1 and 2/appellants in A.S.No.2401 of 2001. 16. Though claimant Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 12 claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for the acquired lands, before the reference court, they have restricted their claims at Rs.50,000/- per acre, as they have deprived of their source of livelihood by acquiring the lands, where they used to cultivate by drawing the water from the wells which have become useless, due to which they are not in a position to pay the Court fee. When this court found that claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to compensation at Rs.70,000/- per acre, claimant Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 12/appellants in A.S.No.1219 of 2002, cannot be denied of the same compensation. Hence, the appellants in A.S.No.1219 of 2002 are also entitled to the same compensation at Rs.70,000/- per acre, subject to payment of difference of court fee, within six weeks from today. However, it is needless to say that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation for the acquired lands. 18. Accordingly, A.S.Nos.2401 of 2001 and 1219 of 2002 are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. A.S.No.590 of 2002 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ______________ RAJA ELANGO, J 21st September 2010 lmv