THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.NO.732/ 2001, 2982/2004, 1054/2001, 1622/2001 1094/2002, 2708/2001, 814/2002, 1128/2002, 1022/2004 and 691/2002 Dt.12-10-2009 AS No.732/2001: Naanapaneni Kasturi ..Appellant V. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divsiional Officer,Tenali. …Respodnent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.NO.732/ 2001, 2982/2004, 1054/2001, 1622/2001 1094/2002, 2708/2001, 814/2002, 1128/2002, 1022/2004 and 691/2002 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Since all these appeals arise out of a common order, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. AS Nos.732/2001, 2982/2004, 1054/2001, 1622/2001, 1094/2002 and 2708/2001 by the claimants and AS Nos.814/2002, 1128/2002, 1022/2004 and 691/2002 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, represented by the beneficiary, namely, Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur are directed against the common order of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla dt. 29-4-2000 passed in LAOP Nos.88/92 and batch. The essential facts, which are relevant for disposal of the appeals, are briefly stated as under: An extent of Ac.9-79 cents in S.Nos.691/1, 692/2, 719/1, 719/2, 719/4, 720, 721/1 and 721/2 of Nidubrolu village was acquired for the purpose of establishing Market Yard by the Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur by issuing a draft notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) dt. 24-8-1989 followed by declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act dt. 16-8-1990. The Land Acquisition Officer after completing the necessary formalities by his award dt. 23-12-1991 fixed the market value at Rs. 58,824/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.1,70,000/- per acre after giving 1/3rd deduction by taking into consideration the sale deed dt. 2-8-88 where 85 cents of land was sold at Rs.75,000/-, which works out to Rs.88,234-29 per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant sought for a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. On reference being received by the reference court, the reference court issued notice to the claimants. On receiving notice, the claimants appeared before the reference court and filed claim statement claiming compensation at Rs.4 lakhs per acre. Since there was a dispute regarding distribution of the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, a reference under Sec. 30 of the Act has been made to the Sub-Court and the Sub-Court by its judgment dt. 15-10-1992 decided the compensation to be received by each claimant. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land, the son of first claimant in LAOP No. 54/98, the claimant in LAOP Nos.53/98 and 51/98, the husband of the claimant in LAOP Nos.52/98 were examined as CWs.1 to 4 respectively. The son of vendor under Exs.A-3, A-4 and A-1 was examined as C.W.5. Vendor under Ex.A-2 was examined as C.W.6. The attestor of Ex.A-5 was examined as C.W.7. The cultivator of the vendor under Ex.A-6 was examined as C.W.8. Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the reference officer, Joint Collector was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.C-1-award copy was marked. The reference court after taking into consideration the sale deed covered under Ex.A-2 dt. 25-1-1988, under which 4 ½ cents of land was sold at Rs.30/- per sq.yard, and after giving deduction of 1/3rd towards developmental charges, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,05,882/- per acre by its common award dt. 29-4- 2000. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the Agricultural Market Committee filed AS Nos.814/2002, 1128/2002, 1022/2004 and 691/2002 and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants filed AS Nos.732/2001, 2982/2004, 1054/2001, 1622/2001, 1094/2002 and 2708/2001. It is brought to our notice that ASSR Nos.21041/2001 and 21076/2001 were preferred by the Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur against the common award passed in LAOP Nos.88/92 and 54/1998 respectively with applications for condoning delay in preferring the appeals. Delay condonation petitions were dismissed vide separate orders dt. 15-7-2002 and 1-7-2002 respectively. No appeals have been preferred against the dismissal. In effect compensation fixed by the reference court in respect of the land covered by OP No.88/92 measuring Ac.0-73 cents and OP No.54/88 measuring Ac.6-08 cents has become final. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur, who have taken us through the entire evidence adduced by the parties and the order of the reference court. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants strenuously submits that the reference court is not justified in discarding Exs.A-1, A-3 to A-8-sale deeds on the ground that the land covered under Ex.A- 1-sale deed is far away from the acquired land and sale deeds covered under Exs.A-3 to A-8 are post notification sale deeds and since there is a steep rise in the prices, which is evident form Exs.A-3 to A-8, the same can be taken into consideration for evaluating the market value. Since the acquired land is having all potentialities for house sites and the land acquired is for construction of Market Yard, which itself shows that the lands are having commercial value, and therefore deduction of 1/3rd by the reference court is not at all warranted. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur contends that the reference court rightly discarded Exs.A-3 to 8, which are post notification sale deeds, and same cannot form the basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. He further contends that the extent covered under Ex.A-2 pertains to 4 ½ cents, and therefore the same cannot form basis for fixation of the market value of large extent of acquired land ie., Ac.9-79 cents, and the reference court is not justified in enhancing the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer basing upon Ex.A-2-sale deed. The Supreme Court in Chimanlal v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona[1] laid down the factors to be considered in fixing the market value of the acquired land. In the said case, large extents were acquired for construction of head quarters, Poona Rural Police Charge. The Supreme Court categorically held that the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the material produced in the Court. Of course, the material produced and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. The market value of the land under acquisition must be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The determination of the market value has to be made standing on the date line of valuation as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that date. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. In doing so, only genuine instances have to be taken into account. Even post- notification instances can be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified considering proximity from time angle and from situation angle. Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deducted by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do and the market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deducted by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. It was also held by the Supreme Court that every case must be dealt with on its own facts bearing in mind all the factors as a competent purchaser of the land in which position the judge must be placed himself. Keeping the same in mind, now we will consider the evidence adduced by the parties. The evidence of C.Ws.1 and 2 goes to show that they have claimed compensation at Rs.4 lakhs per acre and the acquired land was surrounded by rice mill and fisheries office. The acquired land is situated in Ponnur municipal limits, abutting to Jaibharat Reddy colony. As per the basic value for registration purpose is Rs.100/- per sq.yard. C.Ws.1 and 2 have not participated in the award enquiry nor adduced any evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer. C.W.3 who is the claimant in OP No.51/98 corroborated the evidence of C.Ws.1 and 2. C.W.5 who is the son of the vendor under Exs.A-3, A-4 and A-1 deposed that the site covered by Ex.A-1 has main road on the north leading to Repalle and on the west road leading to irrigation channel. He denied a suggestion that they have nominally executed Ex.A-1. Admittedly, Exs.A-3 and A-4-sale deeds are dt.2-5- 1990, under which 242 and 317 sq.yards were sold atRs.50/- per sq.yard. Under Ex.A-5-sale deed dt. 7-2-91, an extent of 81 sq.yards was sold at Rs.125/- per sq.yard. Under Ex. A-6, an extent of 0.04 cents (192 sq.yards) was sold at Rs.125/- per sq.yard. Sale deeds covered under Exs.A-3 to A-8 are post notification sale deeds. It is quite but natural when the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Market Yard, lands within that vicinity will have more commercial value and prices will increase. Keeping in view of the same, the trial court has not taken into consideration post notification sale deeds for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Then there remain only two sale deeds covered under Exs.A- 1 andA-2. Under Ex.A-1 dt. 6-8-1986 an extent of 8 ½ cents of land was sold at Rs.20/- per sq.yard which works out to Rs.96,800/- per acre. Admittedly, the land covered under Ex.A-1 is far away from the acquired land. Even as per the evidence of C.W.5, the site covered under Ex.A-1 has main road on the north leading to Repalle. The reference court rightly discarded Ex.A-1 since the land covered it is far away from the acquired land. As per the sketch, it is evident a small extent of the land is on the main road but not the entire land. To prove Ex.A-2, under which an extent of 4 ½ cents of land was sold by Kakumanu Appa Rao to his son-in-law at Rs.6550/-, which comes to Rs. 30/- per sq.yard (Rs.1,45,555/- per acre), the vendor under Ex.A-2 was examined as C.W.6. He deposed that his son-in-law purchased the land covered under Ex.A-2 for construction of house. In the cross- examination, he deposed that outsiders have also tried to purchase the property covered under Ex.A-2 but they have offered him lesser amount than his son-in-law. He did not enquire about the prevailing market value on the date of Ex.A-2 and about the market value of the land as maintained in the Sub-Registrar’s Office. He denied a suggestion that Ex.A-2 was brought into existence to claim more compensation knowing that the lands in the locality are going to be acquired. The reference court after taking into consideration Ex.A-2 as a comparable sale fixed the market value of the acquired land after deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges at Rs. 1,05,882/-. Since small extent of land covered under Ex.A-2 was taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the large extent of acquired land, 1/3rd deduction is reasonable. Once the appeals, ASSR Nos.21041/2001 and 21076/2001 filed by the Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur against OP Nos.88/92 and 54/1998 dismissed by separate judgments dt. 15-7- 2002 and 1-7-2002 respectively, and no appeals have been preferred against the dismissal of the appeals, compensation in respect of the land covered by the same award has become final In view of the same, we ourselves not inclined to enhance the compensation fixed by the reference court. We dismiss all the appeals confirming the judgment of the reference court in all respects. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR,J Date: 12-10-2009 kmr [1] AIR 1988 SC 1652