IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH [27H] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2370 of 2000 Between: The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) G.D.Project, Yemmiganur … Appellant And: Talari Narayana … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2370 of 2000 JUDGMENT:[Per AGR, J] This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, by the Special Tahasildar (LAO), Yemmiganur, questioning the enhancement of the compensation made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Adoni, in OP No.164 of 1984 dated 19.08.1986. 2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), acquiring an extent of Ac.8.75 cents of land belonging to the respondent-Claimant in Sy.No.184/2 of Neruduppala village, Pattikonda Taluq for the purpose of Gajuladenna Project, was published in the Gazette on 18.12.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying necessary formalities, passed the award on 30.04.1985 fixing the market value for the acquired lands at Rs.2,000/- per acre. The claimants, on receipt of the amount under protest, sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and on reference being made to the civil Court, the claimant filed claim statement seeking compensation at Rs.8,000/- per acre. 3. To prove the claim for enhancement, RWs.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.B.1 to B.3 photostat copies of the registration extracts of the sale deeds were marked. Except marking the protest letter as Ex.A.1, no other evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. 4. RW.1, who is the claimant, testified that the land is black cotton soil situate nearby the village and he is an agriculturist by profession and cultivating the land with crops like jonna, chilly, groundnut, tobacco etc. and getting an income of Rs.600/- per acre and the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.8,000/- per and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition officer do not reflect the true market value. 5. RW.2, who was the purchaser of A c.0-50 cents of land in Neruiduppala village for Rs.5,000/- under Ex.B.1 photostat copy of the registered sale deed, stated that the land of the claimant is situate nearby the land purchased by him and are similar in fertility and crop. 6. RW.3, who sold an extent of Ac.0-40 cents of land on 16.05.1983 for Rs.4,000/- under the original of Ex.B.2 sale deed, stated that the land sold is similar to that of the claimant’s land. R.W.4 sold an extent of Ac.0-50 cents of land on 04.07.1984 in the same village for Rs.5,000/- under the original of Ex.B.3. The Land Acquisition Officer, who made reference of the above sale deeds in his award, rejected the same on the ground that the lands relating to the above sale deeds were situate far away from the lands under reference. The Land Acquisition Officer has not adduced any evidence to show that the said sale deeds cannot be taken as comparable sales for fixation of the market value. When all the lands, which are one year prior to issuance of notification, were sold at Rs.10,000/- per acre uniformly, the same can necessarily form basis for fixation of the market value. The reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.4,500/- per acre, for which no cross appeal was preferred by the claimant. 7. In view of the same, we do not see any merits in this appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition officer and the same is accordingly dismissed confirming the fixation of the market value by the reference Court. It is needless to say that the claimant is entitled to interest not only on enhanced compensation, but also on the solatium. No order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th April, 2010. Bss/lrkm