THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH A.S.No.1418 of 1996 & X Objections Common Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and X- objections by the legal heirs of claimants 5, 25, 26, 9, 10, 31, 32, 11, 12, 28 are directed against the award of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad dated 10-06-1994 in O.P.No.395 of 1989 whereby the reference was answered in favour of the claimants by enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.20,000/- per acre for single crop wet lands and Rs.22,000/- per acre for double crop wet lands as against Rs.4,700/-, Rs.5,425/- and Rs.6,500/- as awarded by the LAO. An extent of Ac.0.32 ½ gts. of dry land, Ac.0.9½ gts. of single crop wet land and Ac.1.35 gts. of double crop wet land of Gotmukula and Donkampalli villages was acquired for the purpose of construction of Anicut across Gotmukula vagu. The substance of the draft notification and draft declaration approved by the Government was published in A.P.Gazette on 06-03-1980; the LAO after completing the formalities and after due enquiry fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,700/- per acre for dry lands, Rs.5,425/- for single crop wet lands and Rs.6,500/- per acre for double crop wet lands by his Award No.A5/6877/79 dated 20-01-1983. Some of the claimants dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO sought for reference under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). On reference being made to the civil court, the claimants filed statements claiming compensation at Rs.15,000/- to 30,000/- per acre. During the pendency of the enquiry claimants 3, 5, 6 and 14 died and their L.R.s were added; and claimants 31 and 32, who have not sought for compensation, were impleaded under Order I Rule 1 CPC in I.A.No.244 of 1990 dated 22-06-1990. In order to prove the market value, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 pahanies were marked and Ex.A5 judgment copy in O.P.No.133 of 1987 was marked. For the lands covered by Ex.A5, notification was published on 14-08-1984 i.e. four years five months after present notification, wherein the LAO fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre for dry land. On reference being made to the civil court, in O.P.No.133 of 1987 the market value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.22,500/- per acre for single crop wet land. Learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the appellants in A.S.No.1418 of 1996 contended that market value fixed for the lands acquired under Ex.A5, which is four years five months after the present notification, cannot be taken as basis for fixing the market value for the lands acquired under the present notification. If the same is excluded there is no other evidence to fix the market value. On the other hand, Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel for the X-objectors, contended that lower court committed an error in refusing to treat the lands as single crop wet lands and treat them as dry lands and awarded Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- per acre and the value of which comes only Rs.5,937/-. He further contended that as there are no comparable sales during the relevant period in view of ceiling laws, the reference court has taken Ex.A5 as basis for fixing the compensation for the acquired lands after giving 10% deduction and accordingly fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre for dry lands, Rs.20,000/- per acre for single crop wet lands and Rs.22,000/- per acre for double crop wet lands, which needs no interference. We see sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the X-objectors. Though the market value fixed under Ex.A5, which was issued four years after the present notification, cannot form basis for fixing the market value in the present case, since no sale statistics are available; the LAO has not adduced any evidence in support of his award by filing necessary sale deeds; Ex.A5 was marked and evidence was adduced by the claimants claiming compensation, the lower court after undertaking some guess work fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre after giving 10% deduction. The evidence of P.W.1, one of the claimants, also shows that LAO wrongly classified the single crop wet land as dry land and awarded only Rs.15,000/- per acre though there is evidence to show that they were raising commercial crops and used to get income of Rs.6,000/- per acre. To substantiate the same he filed Exs.A1 to A4— certified copies of pahanies of the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 to show crop pattern. During the enquiry P.W.3, an independent witness who worked as Patwari from 1973 to 1985, deposed that P.W.2 has raised paddy in his fields and the same was mentioned in the pahanies and the source of irrigation to the lands was tank. Keeping the same into consideration and the reasons adopted by the court in enhancing the compensation in O.P.No.133 of 1987 under Ex.A5, the lower court rightly fixed the market value of the land, referred to above, which do not call for any interference. Since there is error of law committed by the lower court in ordering implead petition, impleading claimants 31 and 32 in the O.P., who have not sought for any reference, we accordingly set aside the order passed in I.A.No.244 of 1990 dated 22-06-1990 and declare that the claimants 31 and 32 are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the X objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J. 03-08-2009 Murthy