IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.1135 OF 2001 Between: The L.A.O. (Sub-Collector, Bhongir) ..... Appellant And D. Ramalingaiah & 10 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.1135 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) The appeal is directed against the award in Land Acquisition Original Petition No.11 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, at Bhongir, dated 01.04.1992. 2. Ac. 22.36 cents in Raigiri Village were acquired by the Government for formation of a percolation tank and possession was taken on 27.08.1981. The draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), was published on 20.10.1984 and the award was passed on 04.08.1986 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.4,500/- per acre. The claimants protested resulting in the reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. 3. The claimants, in their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court, sought for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per acre. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 8, while no oral evidence was adduced by the Referring Officer except marking Ex.B-1. 4. The reference Court rendered the impugned award noting that Claimant No.5 as P.W.1 claimed the land acquired to be very fertile in which they were raising crops like chillies, castor and ground nut or barli and tobacco also, getting an annual income of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per acre. The reference Court noted P.W.1 to have claimed about the fruit bearing trees existing in the different items of land acquired and also that the lands being located by the side of Hanmakonda to Hyderabad road with number of houses, huts, plots, poultry farms, etc., being situated within the vicinity, had high potentiality. P.W.1 was also noted to have stated about the location of the Government sericulture farm nearby and that the civil Court fixed a compensation of Rs.9,500/- per acre granted to Madda Veeramma, the owner of the land six years prior to this present subject acquisition. Number of horticulture and poultry farms and residential colonies were also claimed to be coming up and P.W.1 produced Exs.A-1 to A-8 Sale Deeds between 11.08.1983 and 08.02.1985 in support of his claims of higher value for the lands around. The reference Court then referred to the evidence of P.W.2, the vendor under Ex.A-7, about the sale of 180 square yards effected on 07.05.1984. It also noted the evidence of P.W.3 about sale of house plots about nine years earlier in the vicinity of Sri Rama Dasharatha under Ex.A-6 Sale Deed, dated 16.05.1983. The reference Court also noted the evidence of P.W.4 about selling the land in Sy.No.735 at Rs.30,000/- per acre, but that he got registered at a reduced rate at the request of the purchaser under Ex.A-7 Sale Deed, dated 07.05.1984. The reference Court noted that Exs.A-1 to A-7 were prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Ex.A-8 Sale Deed, dated 08.02.1985, was subsequent. It further noted that the Land Acquisition Officer who considered the sale transactions of 1982, 1983 and 1985 made a personal inspection of the lands and after referring to the various sales referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, the reference Court noted that the best figure in the sale transactions referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.6,000/- per acre in Sl.No.729, but that land was noted to be away from the road without any approachability and being unsuitable for industrial or house site purpose. The reference Court suspected possible speculation in some of the transactions, but noted that even the local enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer revealed the market value to be Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. The reference Court discarded Ex.A-3 Sale Deed, dated 21.05.1984, as it was concerning a small extent and Ex.A-6 as that land was lower than the acquired land and Ex.A-7 as P.W.4 told about suppression of the value at the request of the purchaser under Ex.A-7. Ex.A-8 was not taken into account as none connected with it was examined, but still it was noted that the village is by the side of the National highway/Hanmakonda to Hyderabad road and the reference Court also took notice of the agriculturists citing lesser value in their registered documents to avoid stamp duty. Noting that all the sales were not on yardage basis, on an overall appreciation of the entire evidence, the reference Court was of the opinion that the market value can be justly and reasonably fixed at Rs.11,000/- per acre. It awarded solatium at 30% and interest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till the date of realization. 5. The State preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the said award and contended that there is nothing on record to be depended upon for fixing the market value at Rs.11,000/- per acre after the reference Court itself discarded the documents from consideration. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed just and reasonable market value basing on the potentiality and fertility of the lands at the relevant time and the reference itself was illegal. Hence, the appeal. 6. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the 4th respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 8 to 11. 7. The appeal was posted for taking steps in respect of respondents 6 and 7 also and by virtue of the Court Order, dated 23.06.2009, the appeal stood dismissed for default against respondents 6 and 7 in the absence of taking any steps. 8. Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting claimants are heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the market value fixed by the reference Court is susceptible for reduction and whether the statutory benefits were granted to the claimants in accordance with law? 10. The award impugned in the appeal is a common award in favour of seven claimants fixing the market value at Rs.11,000/- per acre and the appeal having been dismissed for default against the respondents 6 and 7, who were stated to be no more, the appeal, as it stands now, cannot be considered to be properly constituted. Any reassessment of the market value against the remaining respondents and consequential determination of the appeal respecting them is likely to result in conflicting decrees which is not permissible. 11. Even otherwise, it is seen from the material on record that absolutely no evidence was produced by the referring Officer before the reference Court and even the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not marked and admitted into evidence. Under the circumstances, it is not clear as to on what basis it is known or under what circumstances it was claimed in the grounds of appeal that the reference itself was illegal, apart from the question whether the appellant, who himself made the reference to the civil Court, can resile from the reference on any such ground. 12. Even otherwise, there was, thus, no evidence to contradict the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the reference Court on oath. P.W.2 spoke about the sale transaction under Ex.A-3 and except that it was concerning a small extent, the reference Court did not find the sale or evidence of P.W.2 to be otherwise undependable for any reason. Similarly, P.W.3’s evidence about Ex.A-6 was discarded only due to the difference in levels of the land and P.W.3 positively deposed about the general increase in the prices of lands in their village due to establishment of industries, schools, shops and hotels, which claim is not denied. Apart from the difference in level, it is not stated that the lands covered by Ex.A-6 and the acquired lands were totally incomparable otherwise and P.W.4 was courageous enough to state that the value was mentioned at a reduced rate as consideration under Ex.A-7, at the request of the vendee and he claimed the value of the lands in the locality to be Rs.30,000/- per acre due to the constant increase in the values of the land due to the establishment of the industries in the area. While the Land Acquisition Officer himself, during his inspection and local enquiry, found the market value of the lands in the area to be about Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre, when the sale transactions under Exs.A-1 to A-7 were anterior to Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, they need not have been straight away discarded. The sale statistics referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer were innumerable in number and all of them were discarded for various reasons and the reasoning itself shows that the lands which were totally unapproachable from the main road and were far away from the main road, unsuitable for industrial or house site purposes were the lands which were found to be uncomparable, while the lands acquired were by the side of Hanmakonda to Hyderabad road. The approachability of the lands or the suitability of the lands for agriculture are not in dispute and the over all possibilities arising out of the oral and documentary evidence, thus, indicate that the market value of the lands in the locality could never have been less than Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre as noted by the Land Acquisition Officer himself during the local enquiry. As the values of the sales covered by Exs.A-1 to A-7 were much much higher, the reference Court fixing the market value by giving a marginal benefit at Rs.11,000/- per acre cannot be considered to be divorced from the then prevailing market rate and in the absence of any strong and convincing reasons, the jurisdiction exercised by the reference Court cannot be considered to be illegal or irregular. 13. However, it is seen that the statutory benefits awarded on the market value fixed were not in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984). The reference Court did not grant additional market value at 12% per annum and awarded interest from the date of taking possession, while the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was much later. These distortions are to be corrected and though the deceased respondents 6 and 7 remain unrepresented in the appeal, as the said correction relates to giving effect to the mandatory statutory provisions relating to benefits consequential to the fixation of market value and as the determination of the market value is not interfered with, the same is not impermissible. The impugned award has to be modified, accordingly, while dismissing the appeal. 14. In the result, the enhancement of the compensation to Rs.11,000/- per acre by the award in Land Acquisition Original Petition No.11 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Bhongir, dated 01.04.1992, is confirmed and the claimants shall be entitled to solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum for the period specified in Section 23 (1-A) of the Land acquisition Act with interest at 9% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e., 20.10.1984 for a period of one year and at 15% per annum thereafter till the payment of the enhanced compensation. The impugned award is modified to that extent. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs except to the extent of such modification. _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) _______________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: 30th December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.1135 OF 2001 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) December 30, 2010. KL