THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.Nos.182 and 478 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These two appeals are preferred by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, against the common order, dated 16.07.1998 passed by III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in L.A.O.P.Nos.772 and 773 of 1996. An extent of 0.00623 square feet or 69 2/9 square yards of land and a portion of building covered by T.S.No.1053/1E of Block Nos.48 and 49 of Waltair Ward belonging to the claimant in O.P.No.772 of 1996, and an extent of 0.00451 square feet or 50 1/9 square yards of land and a part of building covered by T.S.No.1053/1D of Block Nos.48 and 49 of Waltair Ward belonging to the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.773 of 1996 were acquired for the purpose of widening of road, by issuing a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 16.07.1984 and the substance of the same was published in the Gazette on 29.08.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after completing the due formalities, by his Award No.12/87, dated 16.02.1987, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.120/- per square yard and estimated the value of the building at Rs.40,986/- and Rs.35,553/- in O.P.Nos.772 and 773 of 1996 respectively. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants, on receipt of compensation under protest, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of reasonable compensation. On reference being made, the claimants appeared before the reference Court and filed claim statements claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per square yard for the acquired land and compensation for the building affected by acquisition in L.A.O.P.No.772 of 1996 at Rs.3,70,000/-, and in L.A.O.P.No.773 of 1996 at Rs.3,00,000/-. Since both the acquisitions are part of the same building owned by the brothers, the lower Court clubbed both the O.Ps and conducted common enquiry in L.A.O.P.No.773 of 1996. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land and building, on behalf of the claimants, the claimant in O.P.No.773 of 1996 was examined as P.W.1 and also examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. The lower Court, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants, held that both the land and portions of the building were used as bakery by P.W.1 as on the date of notification, as per Ex.A.3-profession tax receipt in the name of B.A.S Bakery; that due to compulsory nature of acquisition the claimants have lost their business and therefore they are also entitled to compensation under the heads of loss of business and severance; and that since the properties are situated in busy commercial area as admitted by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.49,292.67 ps and Rs.41,566.33 ps awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It also awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of severance and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of business with all statutory benefits. Questioning the same, the present appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer. Smt.V.Preethi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, fixing the market value at lumpsum by the lower Court is without any basis and that the lower Court ought not to have awarded compensation under the heads of severance and loss of business without there being any evidence. None appears for the claimants. We have gone through the entire evidence adduced by the parties and also the reasoning adopted by the lower Court in enhancing the compensation. P.W.1 deposed that he closed the business in view of the acquisition. Under Ex.A.4-original lease deed dated 24.08.1983 between P.W.1 and M/s.Fouress Engineering India (Pvt) Limited, he let out his first floor of the building, which is opposite to the property under acquisition, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/-. Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of the order and decree in L.A.O.P No.142 of 1988, dated 04.12.1995, where the lower Court awarded compensation in respect of the property acquired consisting of structures and site covered by T.S.No.124/4, which is near by the property under acquisition. In that 20 times multiplier was deemed as minimum and reasonable for awarding the compensation. Taking the same into consideration, and since the property acquired is situated in a busy locality having commercial value, and though the Land Acquisition has taken into consideration a sale deed dated 05.04.1983 in respect of the property covered by T.S.No1196 for arriving at the market value, but not awarded the same rate of Rs.200/- per square yard, but arbitrarily fixed at Rs.120/- per square yard, and taking into consideration the rental value as per the evidence of parties, and that since the front portion of the building was acquired where the claimants are conducting bakery business, which is evident from Exs.A.3 and A.6, the lower Court rightly enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.49,292.67 and Rs.41,566.33 ps respectively awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is just and reasonable. Coming to the awarding of Rs.10,000/- under the head of severance and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of business, we are of the opinion that the lower Court has not committed any error in awarding the same, in view of the settled principles for awarding the compensation under various heads. In view of the above, we do not see any merits in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 11.08.2009 va