THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NOS.357 AND 1010 OF 2000 & Cross Objections (Sr) Nos.28551 & 41231 of 2000 Dated. 04-2-2011 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam .…Appellant Vs. S.Krishna and D.Rama Krishna Sarma and others ....Respondents/Cross Objectors THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NOS.357 AND 1010 OF 2000 & Cross Objections (Sr) Nos.28551 & 41231 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) Both appeals arise out of the common order in O.P.Nos.168 and 169 of 1988 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. An extent of 375 square yards of land in Sy.No.527/2 of Block No.13 of Vizianagaram belongs to claimant in O.P.No.168 of 1988 was acquired by the Government for formation of III reach inner and intermediate ring road under IUDP scheme. Some other extents of land was also acquired belonging to the claimant in LAOP No.169 of 1988. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ( for short "the Act") notification was issued on 23-02-1984 and an award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value @ Rs.21/- per square yard and deducted 1/3rd and fixed at Rs.14/- per square yard. The claimants were not satisfied with the above claim and hence the reference was made to the court. The claimants claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the real market value of the potentiality and the wells and structures were not considered and the land is located in a potential area and they are entitled to a sum of Rs.500/- per square yard. The claimants in the other O.P also claimed the same compensation. Both the O.Ps were clubbed together and on behalf the claimants in O.P.No.168 of 1988 Rws.1 and 2 were examined and marked registration extract of sale deed as Ex.B-1. On behalf of the claimants in O.P.No.169 of 1988 RWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. After considering the material on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge found that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not proper and accordingly fixed the market value at Rs.80/- per square yard though there are sales at Rs.160/- per square yard. The learned Senior Civil Judge granted 12% additional market value and also solatium but did not give the interest thereon. Thereafter aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed both appeals questioning the enhancing the compensation whereas the claimants being not satisfied with the market value fixed by the lower court filed the Cross Objections. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the enhancement of the market value by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) If the claimants are entitled for any further enhancement of the market value? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- It is not in dispute that in a case of reference to the court under the Act, the burden is absolutely on the claimants to prove the real potentiality of the market value. The first claimant in O.P.No.168 of 1988 was examined and according to him there was a super structure of welding shop and residential house and the same was acquired in the year 1984 for the formation of the road. It is also claimed that the acquired property is abuts the Balaji cinema theatre and adjacent to the main road and leading to bus complex and there are several amenities in and around the acquired land. He relied upon Ex.B-1 a registration extract of the sale deed dated 31-10-1985 where under 51 square yards was sold for Rs.411/- per square yard and the purchaser was examined as RW.2. In Cross examination RW.2 stated that the land covered under Ex.B-1 sale deed is situated at a distance of two furlongs to Ambedkar statue and from the evidence of Rw.1 the land under acquisition is in a developed locality. The lower court also considered the evidence of the claimants in O.P.No.169 of 1988. The evidence of Land Acquisition Officer goes to show that the so-called post office, theatre and bus complex were not established by the date of notification. The lower court also found that acquired land is opposite to the main road leading to RTC bus complex. Ultimately the very purpose of acquisition is for widening of the road and the fact that it abuts the road cannot be ignored. The learned Senior Civil Judge considered the sale deed dated 28-04-1983 which was marked as Ex.B-2 in O.P.No.169 of 1988 which was jointly tried and took into consideration where under 248 square yards was sold for Rs.161/- per square yard and also the sale deed under Ex.B-3 dated 27- 01-1983 where under 1093 square yards of land was sold at Rs.100/- per square yard and ultimately Ex.B-4 which was the sale deed dated 21-02- 1984 whereunder 63 ½ square yards was sold for Rs.80/- per square yard. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and also the fact that the lands in the vicinity was sold at Rs.160/- per square yard the learned Senior Civil Judge granted compensation @ Rs.80/- per square yard. The contention of the counsel for the claimants/cross objectors that the sale deeds reflects a higher value and it is not proper for the lower court to have rejected the value @ Rs.160/- as reflected under the sale deeds. It is to be mentioned that from the nature of evidence adduced by the parties, none of the properties under Exs.B-2 to 4 are abutting the acquired land. In a town like Vizianagaram even 100 square yards distance in location of the properties makes a lot of difference in its value, even a furlong away, then the potentialities is also quite different. Merely because some developments have taken place subsequently it cannot fall back to the date of notification to take the market value but the fact can only be that there is potentiality for the acquired land. There is no proof on the side of the claimants that they have been deprived of any enjoyment and they suffered loss. Therefore, in view of the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the fixation of the market value by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Rs.80/- per square yard and the claim of the claimants for further enhancement is not real and not supported by any acceptable evidence. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge after granting the additional market value and 30% solatium did not grant the interest thereon. Therefore, it is against the principle laid down in the decision of Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]). The points are therefore answered. Therefore both appeals are dismissed as well as Cross-Objections filed by the claimants in both appeals while confirming enhancement granted by the lower court. However, the claimants will be entitled for interest on the solatium and also the additional market value as held in Sunder (supra), which was rejected by the lower court along with the enhanced compensation. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 04-2-2011 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).