HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT No.735 of 2000 Dated 21-7-2010. Between: Vankineni Rajasekhara Rao. …Petitioner. And: The Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. ...Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT No.735 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 5-10-1999 passed in O.P.No.114 of 1988 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. The deceased sole appellant died and was survived by his Legal Representative who was brought on record as 2nd appellant. The respondent is the land Acquisition Officer. The total extent of the land of the appellant admeasuring Ac.4.60 cents of Government dry comprising of an extent of Ac.4.04 cents in R.S.No.877/1 and of an extent of Ac.0-56 cents in R.S.No.877/2B situated in Eluru Block-III at Eluru, Eluru Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites belonging to the Schedule Caste, Backward Class and other weaker sections pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on 28-5-1982. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was simultaneously published on 28-5-1982. Advance possession of the land was taken on 14-7-1982. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.6/85-86 dated 18-2-1986 fixing market value at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per acre. On a Reference, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.17,000/- per acre to Rs.65,000/- per acre for the land acquired. The Reference Court further answered that the claimant is entitled to solatium at 30% on the enhanced market value and also entitled to additional amount calculated at 12% p.a., from the date of 4 (1) notification and interest at 9% p.a., for the first one year and at 15% p.a., for the subsequent period from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit into the Court on the enhanced compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed this appeal. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the Reference Court. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The contention of the claimant is that the acquired lands are at a distance of about ten yards of Eluru Municipality limits and market value of the acquired land is at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard and that the subject land is situated in Block No:III, but Ex.A.1 certified copy of order in O.P.No.88 of 1988, which is covered by the neighbouring land in Block No:II, is not taken into consideration for fixing the market value and therefore, the Reference Court is not justified in discarding the value of the neighbouring land under Ex.A1. The point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation over and above the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre as fixed by the Reference Court. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 who stated that the acquired lands are in block No.III of Eluru Mandal in Sunkaravarithota is within the Grampanchayat limits of Venkatapuram and it is almost part of Eluru town. Eluru Municipality Limits is at a distance of 10 yards from the land under acquisition. The acquired land is built up area and number of tiled houses, terraced houses and R.C.C. buildings have come up around the acquired land. There are two Rice Mills in the vicinity of land under acquisition. To the North of the land under acquisition, there is a postal colony and to the South of the land, there is a panchayat road leading from Venkatapuram to Eluru. The acquired land has got great potentiality for house sites and it is capable for construction of houses without any improvement or levelling, as the land is located at higher level than the road. By the date of 4 (1) Notification, the lands in the vicinity were being sold at Rs.50/- to Rs.60/- per square yard. The Government acquired the land of one Chelasani Revathi for providing house sites to weaker sections. This Court granted compensation at Rs.50/- per square yard. P.W.1 further stated that for the land relating to Ch.Revathi, the Reference Court fixed market value at the rate of Rs.33/- per square yard in O.P.No.80/88 under Ex.A.1 and therefore, the order in the O.P.80 of 1988 is relevant for the purpose of fixing market value. P.W.1 further stated that the acquired land is a very fertile and capable of yielding two crops and by the date of 4 (1) notification, the prices of paddy per bag was Rs.200/-. However, the claimant is claiming compensation for the land under acquisition basing on its potentiality as house sites. He is claiming market value yard-wise but not acre-wise. According to him, worth of land is Rs.100/- per square yard and it is admitted that in his statement before the Land Acquisition Officer during enquiry, he has requested the Land Acquisition Officer to grant Rs.25/- per square yard. P.W.2 is the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the acquired land on 25-8-1989 and prepared a report of the Commissioner under Ex.C.1 dated 10-11-1989. According to him, development took place in and around the land and there are houses, colony and the land is situated very close to Eluru Municipal limits and abutting area is built up area, with tiled, terraced and pucca buildings and rice mills which are about 15-20 years old. The claimant has also relied on Ex.B.1 Sketch in support of his contention that the acquired land is in the developed area. The Reference Court did not place reliance on Ex.B.1 sketch showing the land proposed for constructions. Ex.B.1 sketch did not show the location of Sunkaravari Thota and Rice Mills. Sunkaravari Thota is in S.Nos.918, 917, 920 and 885 and 884. It is separated by a tank covered by R.S.No.883 on the Eastern side and separated by a road and nearer to the acquired land on the North- East corner. Sunkaravari Thota was stretched in ‘L’ shape. The postal colony is shown in the land covered by R.S.Nos.855, 856 and 857. That colony is separated by 880 and a strip of land in R.S.No.871 on the North-West corner of the land under acquisition. According to the evidence, admittedly, the Postal Housing Colony is in the Municipal limits whereas the land of the claimant is in Venkatapuram Panchayat. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined. He deposed that the land acquired is in the built up area and it is non-municipal areas. The acquired land which is in Sunkaravari Thota area, is adjacent to the built up area. Rice Mill is also situated adjacent to the acquired land. Admittedly, the claimant did not adduce any evidence by filing a sketch to show that the land covered by Ex.A.1 is in the vicinity of the acquired land and that it has got similar potentiality. At this stage, it is to be noted that the order under Ex.A.1 has not become final in view of its pendency before this Court. In this view of the matter, much weight cannot be attached to Ex.A1. The Reference Court relying on a decision reported in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ELURU AND OTHERS v. JASTI ROHINI (SMT.) AND OTHERS ([1]) granted compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre. The land covered by the Judgment in the above decision, also pertains to the same vicinity in Venkatapuram panchayat area. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant relied on Ex.A.1 certified copy of the order in O.P.No.80/88 which is a subject matter of A.S. Nos.1013 of 1999 and 1125 of 1999 filed by the claimant and the Land Acquisition Officer. The land covered by Ex.A.1 is situated in S.No.783 of Eluru town whereas the subject matter of the acquired land is situated in S.No.877/1 and 877/2B of Eluru Block III. Admittedly, in respect of the land covered by Ex.A.1, 4 (1) Notification was issued on 3-2-1984 and in the instant case, in respect of the land situated in Venkatapuram Panchayat, Eluru Town, 4 (1) Notification was issued on 28.5.1982. At the time of acquiring the said land, there existed buildings, permanent pucca buildings, permanent structures and development etc. It is stated that the said land was situated in development area. But, coming to the land in the instant case, the said land is situated in Sunkarivari thota, Venkatapuram Panchayat, which is almost Eluru town and in continuation of the Municipal limits. It is not in dispute that under Ex.A.1, the Reference Court awarded a compensation at the rate of 33/- per square yard and the High Court enhanced and fixed the same at Rs.60/- per square yard in respect of the lands situated in Eluru town Municipality. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the Reference Court rightly relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra which arose from the Judgment of this Court in A.S. Nos.497 and 645 of 1991 dated 29-9-1993. The land covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above citation is situated in S.Nos.768 and 771/2 of Eluru Town, Block II of Eluru Mandal within the Eluru Municipal limits and Section 4 (1) notification was dated 23-3-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre and on reference, the Reference Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.70/- per square yard and on appeal, this Court enhanced the same to Rs.100/- per square yard. On special leave petition filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Supreme Court in the above cited judgment set aside the Judgment and decree of this Court and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre alone in the A.S.No:497 of 1991 and the claimants in A.S.No:645 of 1991, are entitled to compensation at Rs.80,000/- per acre apart from their entitlement of statutory benefits. We do not see any reason to find fault with the award of the Reference Court in following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, 4 (1) Notification pertaining to the lands in the instant case is dated 28-5-1982 whereas the lands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court (citation supra) is dated 23.3.1985. Therefore, the fact remains that the lands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court (Citation supra) are situated within the limits of Eluru Municipality whereas the lands in question are situated out side the municipal limits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that the lands covered by judgment of the Supreme Court, are awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- and 80,000/- per acre respectively in respect of 4 (1) notification dated 23.3.1985, we are of the opinion that the said judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra is binding on the acquisition of the lands under notification dated 28.5.1982 and therefore, the Reference Court is justified in relying on the said judgment while fixing the market value of the lands in question. Apart from that, the claimants have failed to file any sale deed prior to the acquisition in question and also failed to adduce any material to show as to the building activity in the neighbouring vicinity. Admittedly, Ex.C.1 is the report of the commissioner who inspected the acquired lands on 25-8-1989 which is 7 years after the acquisition. Therefore, during the interregnum period from the date of acquisition, there may be many developments and at this length of time, much weight cannot be attached to Ex.C1. In this background of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand, for the purpose of fixing the market value as rightly held by the Reference Court. Hence, we do not see any merits in this appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Dated 21-7-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT No.735 of 2000 (Judgment delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Dated 21-7-2010. [1] 1995 (1) A.L.T. 37 (S.C.)