HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.2180 of 2001 and 1986 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) While A.S.No.2180 of 2001 is filed by the claimants, A.S.No.1986 of 2002 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the order dated 28.02.2001 passed in O.P.No.111 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), proceedings were initiated for acquisition of an extent of Ac.4.19 gts. in Sy.No.62 of Attapur Village for the purpose of providing house sites for weaker sections and the Land Acquisition Officer, after deducting 1/3rd towards roads and amenities, passed award dated 01.06.1996 only in respect of an extent of Ac.2.27 guntas treating the claimants as protected tenants and fixed the market value at Rs.50/- per sq. yard. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants sought a reference contending that, though one Anantha Kishan Rao was the pattadar of subject land, as they were declared as protected tenants, they were entitled to compensation for the entire extent of Ac.4.19 guntas instead of Ac.2.27 guntas. The Reference Court held that since the claimants were protected tenants, they were entitled to compensation only to an extent Ac.2.27 guntas, which comes to 8631 sq. yards and having deducted 1/4th on the price arrived at Rs.360/- per sq. yard fixed the market value at Rs.270/- per sq. yard. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals submits that Exs.A.1 to A.6, sale transactions, relate to comparatively small extents of lands and cannot form the basis or foundation for fixing the market value of the lands acquired, that the Reference Court erred in deducting 1/4th amount from the market value arrived at, and ought to have deducted 50% of the compensation towards development charges for the entire extent, that the Reference Court was of the erroneous view that the Land Acquisition Officer has deducted 1/3rd of the area and that it ought to have seen that the claimants being the protected tenants are entitled to compensation of 60% of an extent of Ac.2.27 gts. towards their entitlement as against the total extent of A.4.19 gts. 4. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.270 per sq. yard is just and reasonable. 5. We shall first advert to the contention of the learned Government Pleader that sale transactions relating to small extents of land cannot form the basis for determining the market value of larger extents. It is no doubt true that the Exs. A-1 to A- 6 relate to small extents of land. It is also true that the acquired land is located in urban area where there is steep rise in prices and, therefore, it is not common that lands located in urban area will be sold en bloc or in large tracts that can be looked into as a precedent. The Reference Court adverted to a decision of this court in C.Dharma Reddy Vs. R.D.O., Miryalguda (1998(1) ALT 47) wherein a Division Bench of this court after allowing escalation charges at 20% per annum, has taken into consideration the prices fetched for small extents of the lands for determining the market value for larger extents. Therefore, for the purpose of guidance, in the absence of sale transactions in respect of larger extents, necessarily, the court has to advert to Exs. A-1 to A-6, which we presently discuss. 6. It is not in dispute that Exs.A.1 to A.6 were the sale transactions that took place in respect of different extents of lands in Sy.Nos.60, 66, 67 to 70 of Attapur Village at Rs.300 per sq. yard. The claimants claim that the sale transactions covered by the said survey numbers are nearby to the land acquired in Sy.No.62 of Attapur Village. Though we are of the opinion that the Reference Court ought to have added 20% of escalation and, even if 20% escalation is not added, the market value prevailing a year prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act (as is evident from Ex.A.6) is Rs.300 per sq. yard. As 1/3rd area was already deducted by the Land Acquisition Officer and admittedly the lands were acquired for house sites and the sale transactions covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 are one year prior and even if escalation is added, it would be Rs.330 per sq. yard. The Reference Court arrived at Rs.360 per sq. yard and deducted 1/4th and fixed the market value at Rs.270 per sq. yard. Hence, the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.270 per sq. yard appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, neither the claimants are entitled for enhancement nor the Land Acquisition Officer to seek reduction of compensation. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and additional market value at 12% on Rs.270 per sq. yard from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of award, with interest at 9% per annum for one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment. No costs. V.ESWARAIAH,J N.RAVI SHANKAR,J Date:29.12.2011 usd