THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NOs.1181, 1405, 1411 and 2404 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) All these appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered by the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla in a batch of O.Ps where certain lands belonging to the claimants at Nidubrolu village in several survey numbers were acquired for laying of an approach road to the over bridge and widening of the road at Nidubrolu. There are certain structures in the lands. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “the Act”) was given on 15-11-1979 and possession was taken on 05-05-1981 and an award enquiry was conducted and an award was passed on 30-04-1984 fixing the market value @ Rs.60/- per square yard. The claimants were not satisfied with the above amount and a reference was made to the court. The claimants claimed the value of the acquired lands is higher and they wanted to be @ Rs.1500/- per square yard and also disputed about the value of the structures determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, during the course of reference, a batch of O.Ps were clubbed together and on behalf of the claimants CWs.1 to 19 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-20. On behalf of the Referring Officer, Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked and Exs.C-1 and C-2 and Ex.X-1 were also marked. After considering the evidence on record, the leaned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla fixed the market value @ Rs.74/- per square yard and granted additional market value, solatium and interest. Aggrieved by the said judgment, four appeals have been filed and some the claimants did not file the appeal. The appellants in A.S.No.2404 of 2000 filed the appeal claiming market value @ Rs.625/- per square yard whereas the other appellants have confined their claim to @ Rs.300/- per square of yard. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senor Civil Judge is real? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the enhancement and if so to what extent? 3. To what relief? POINTS:- Before appreciating the contentions of the appellants, it is useful to refer to some of the legal aspects canvassed by the counsel. According to the order of the lower court, the sale deeds Exs.X-1 to X-5 are not taken into consideration since the parties concerned with them are not examined and therefore they are ignored. It is contended that the above reasoning by the lower court is not correct in view of Section 51(A) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Purya and others ([1]) which lays down the contents of the registered document can be relied upon without examining the vendor or vendee. He also relied upon a decision reported in Satish and Ors Vs. State of U.P and Anr.([2]) with regard to method of determination of the market value and refusal to take into consideration the large number of relevant sale deeds being erroneous. So also he relied on a decisions reported in Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. the U.P. Government through Collector of Bijnor ([3]) and Mahabir Prasad Santuka and others Vs. Collector, Cuttack and others ([4]) about the principles of arriving at the market value by taking into the potentialities and location. Sofar as the claim of the appellants with regard to fact of non- consideration of the sale transactions are concerned, as can be seen from the award, merely 77 sale transactions were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer from 1976 to 1979 relating to the sales in different survey numbers and also survey numbers under acquisition and close to the acquired lands. As can be seen from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, he has given reasons as to why the sale transactions are not taken into consideration and why some of them are rejected. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale transaction in Sy.No.48/2 to an extent of 1336 square links dated 28-12-1977 and the value as per it per acre comes to Rs.2,90,323/-. He is said to have inspected the lands and Sub-collector also inspected the lands and determined the market value. Therefore, it is quite clear that the sale transactions were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and reasons were given for fixing the market value. If such is the fact, then the claimants being in the capacity of the plaintiffs have to prove what was more market value of the acquired lands and what were the further potentialities which were to be taken into consideration. The lands of the appellants were in Sy.Nos.49/2-D and 50/1-A. The counsel for the appellants contended that when there are available transactions of sale for the same survey number under acquisition the Land Acquisition Officer has ignored them and considered the sale transaction relating to Sy.No.48/2 and therefore it is not proper. Further more, even with regard to other survey numbers, which are adjacent to the lands under acquisition, the market value is more and the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court have ignored them. His particular stress is with regard to sale transaction at Sl.Nos.42 to 44 relating to lands in Sy.No.49/2 the value of the acre came to more than Rs.4,21,444/- and they relate to the year 1978, nearer to the date of notification and the Land Acquisition Officer has ignored the same. While considering the sale transaction, it was noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer the value was not considered because there are some structures as per the award. Therefore, naturally higher value is fetched and they cannot be relied upon. So also the sale transaction at Sl.No.50 in Sy.No.48/2 fetches Rs.3,11,588/- per acre and the date of sale is 02-05- 1978 and the Land Acquisition Officer, according to the counsel for the appellants, ignored the same. The Land Acquisition Officer noticed that the lands under sale transactions are far away from the lands under acquisition and therefore it cannot be considered. So also for other sale transactions, the Land Acquisition Officer gave sufficient reasons to discard the sales. Evidently, in this case the claimants have not filed any other documents to prove the market value of the acquired lands. In fact, the finding of the lower court is also in para No.81 that there is no evidence worth being taken into consideration produced by the claimants and therefore the court is left with the guess work only. In fact, PW.1 who is the first claimant in O.P.No.50 of 1986, has specifically stated in his cross examination that he cannot say whether any document is available to show that the market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.60/- per square yard by the date of notification. He filed Ex.A-4 which is of the year 1982. Even the documents Exs.X-1 to X-5 which are filed at the time of arguments, we do not in any way advance the case of the claimants, even if they are to be looked into. Further more, if the potentialities are to be taken into consideration, there are different circumstances that have to be taken into consideration. There will be separate and several plots in the same survey number. There are several houses constructed in the survey numbers and evidently when the property is in residential area, the value of the land will not be the same from plot to plot. Even a distance of about one furlong from house to other house varies the valuation. Mere because all the houses are in the residential locality they will not have any similar potentiality as the location differs and the distance of the houses either to the road or to the village is away, then the valuation is also different. Therefore, these are all factors which were taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer and fixed the market value. The appellants have failed to prove that the market value claimed by them is real and that the market value fixed by the court below is not reasonable. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the value of the sheds and other structures were disallowed and that there was a loss of business and it was also not compensated and the lower court should have considered these aspects. Evidently, the Land Acquisition Officer while assessing the value of the structures has taken into consideration the age etc., and fixed the valuation. The structures evaluated by the Engineering Department and the finding of the lower court is that the appellants have not let in evidence to show that the valuation is incorrect. The lower court also found the laying of the over bridge is more advantageous and increases the value of the sites. In fact PW.1 who claims that there were some structures clearly stated that he did not file any claim statement showing that the amount awarded towards demolition of the structures is low. He also admitted that there is no document to show that they suffered loss in the business due to construction of the over bridge. He is also not able to say about the cost incurred for the construction of the demolished structures by the Government. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the market value awarded by the lower court is reasonable and value of the structures, which were assessed and determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is real and correct and sufficient compensation was granted. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the appellants are entitled for higher compensation. However, as can be seen from the judgment of the lower court the solatium @ 30% and the additional market value @ 12% was granted. The judgment is silent as to the payment of interest on the solatium and the additional market value. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India ([5]) the claimants will be entitled to the interest on the solatium and additional market value if it is not paid and realised by the appellants. With the above modification the appeals are liable to be allowed. The points are accordingly answered. In the result, the judgment of the lower court is modified and the market value fixed by the lower court with regard to acquired lands and structures is confirmed and the claimants are found entitled for interest on solatium and additional market value. Each party is directed to bear their own costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR [1] AIR 2004 SC 4830(1) [2] 2009 AIR SCW 5560 [3] AIR 1967 SC 465 [4] (1987) 1 SCC 587 [5] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).