THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO.1019 OF 1999 J U D G M E N T: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed This Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the appellant- claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru by order and decree dated 15.10.1998 in O.P. No. 1 of 1987. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The land in an extent of Ac.3.34 cents in R.S. Nos. 866, 867/2 and 868/1 situate at Eluru Town was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, vide notification dated 25.04.1978, issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into account and consideration the sale transactions that took place in the vicinity of the land in question, passed an award on 27.03.1985, fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre and at Rs.9,450/- for fourteen coconut trees at the rate of Rs.675/- per tree and consequently, possession of the land was taken on 04.- 03.1982. The claimant protested the award and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court for proper determination of the market value of the land in question. In the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, the claimant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. He has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and filed Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, though, was of the view that the claimant has failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land under acquisition is inadequate, thought it proper to enhance the same by 20%, keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer[1], and accordingly, enhanced the same to Rs.12,000/- per acre. The award in respect of the other aspects was confirmed. Aggrieved by the inadequate enhancement, the appellant filed the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge should have given credence to Exs.A2 and A3 and then fixed the market value. According to him, the land in question has building potentiality and hence, the learned Judge erred in making a proper assessment of its value. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Admittedly, Exs.A1 to A3 are of the post- notification sale documents, whereas the land in question was acquired in the year 1978. Therefore, these sale transactions are obviously of no help to the claimant. But, however, the subject land is situated in close proximity of Eluru town and it fetches more value than what has been awarded by the reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the ratio in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru v. Jasti Rohini[2], wherein the market value of the lands situated in Eluru Municipality was fixed at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre. In that case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in the year 1983, and the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites and the Supreme Court estimated the land value at Rs.65,000/- per acre . In the instant case, the notification was issued in the year 1978 and the land was also situate in or around same locality and acquired for a similar purpose. Therefore, the principles behind fixation of market value at Rs.65,000/- per acre can be taken into consideration. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy’s case (cited supra), wherein seven guidelines were formulated for purposes of fixing the market value based on the building potentiality, which are to the following effect: i) the situation of the acquired land vis-à-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings; be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes; v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land; vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centers, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. Therefore, following the principles contained in the above-said judgments of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the compensation be enhanced for the lands in question, but however, after providing for deduction at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each for five years, because the notification in the present case is of the year 1978 i.e. five years prior to the notification issued in the case of Rohini’s case, wherein the Supreme Court fixed the market value at Rs.65,000/- per acre. Since the purpose of acquisition of the land is for providing house sites to the poorer sections of the society, one-third of the market value has to be deducted for purposes of development of the site also. Therefore, after deducting one-third, we deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation as against the amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the reference Court, thus fixing the market value at Rs.27,000/- per acre. The order of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in all other respects shall remain intact. With the above-said modification, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 29th December 2009 ksld [1] 1995(2) ALT 15 (SC) [2] 1995(1) ALT 37 (SC)