HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No.463 OF 1999 DATED:07-10-2009 BETWEEN: Vasamseti Ramachandra Rao …Appellant AND Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry & Another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No.463 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the claimant against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry in O.P.No.19 of 1988, dated 20.10.1997 whereby the reference made under Section 18 of the Act was answered confirming the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer while granting benefits under the Amendment Act, 68 of 1984. An extent of Ac.0.30 cents and Ac.5.82 cents of land belonged to the claimant-appellant situated in Sy.No.474/1 and 476/3 of Palacharla Village was acquired by Government for the purpose of construction of houses by A.P. Housing Board through draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 21.1.1981 and possession was taken on 21.4.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed an award on 30.11.1982 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,000/- per acre with interest at 4 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant sought for reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the market value. On reference being made, the claimant appeared before the reference Court and filed a claim statement claiming the market value of the acquired land at Rs.75,000/- per acre. In order to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of draft notification, the claimant apart from examining himself as P.W.1 got examined one J.Boorayya as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 sale deeds. On behalf of referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1-copy of award and B.2-copy of combined sketch of Palacherla Village were marked. The reference Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that Ex.A.2 sale deed, dated 27.11.1981 cannot be taken into consideration for determination of the market value of the acquired land as the said transaction is after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. With regard to the remaining sale transactions covered by Exs.A.1 and A.3, the reference Court discarded the same holding that none connected with those sale deeds were examined and holding so, confirmed the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.14,000/- per acre, but as the award proceedings were pending on the date when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced in the Parliament, the claimants were awarded additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of passing of award and higher rate of solatium at 30% per annum and interest at 9% per annum on the above amount for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till realization. Hence, the present appeal by the claimant seeking further enhancement of market value of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would contend that the reference Court erred in discarding the sale deeds- Exs.A.1 and A.3 only on the ground that none connected with those documents were examined, but in view of insertion of Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act, once the sale deed for the relevant period is marked, the contents thereof can be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. Further with regard to Ex.A.2, P.W.2 was examined to prove the transaction covered by Ex.A.2-sale deed and though it is post-notification sale deed, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the reference Court to know the increase of the market value of the land within the proximity of the acquired land covered by the notification. Therefore, the learned counsel requests to fix the suitable market value for the acquired land. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals sought to sustain the impugned order. Under Ex.A.1 sale deed, dated 3.11.1982 an extent of Ac.4.39 cents of land was sold for Rs.43,900/-, which works out to Rs.10,000/- per acre, and that the said sale transaction is post- notification i.e. it was executed 22 months after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under Ex.A.2 sale deed, dated 27.11.1981, a small extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land was sold for Rs.20,000/-, which works out to Rs.1 lakh per acre. Whereas, the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.3 is also post- notification. The reference Court rightly held that Ex.A.2, which is admittedly a post-notification transaction and covered by a small extent, cannot form basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. All the sale deeds marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3 are post-notification and they will not reflect the true market value of the acquired land for the reason that on acquisition of the land for construction of houses by the A.P. Housing Board, naturally the market value in the vicinity would go up due to the amenities provided by the Housing Board like laying of roads, converting of acquired land into plots etc. Further, one year 10 months after acquisition of subject-land, an extent of Ac.4.39 cents of land was sold at Rs.43,900/- under Ex.A.1 which itself shows that even after acquisition, the surrounding land was available for sale at Rs.10,000/- per acre and whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,000/- per acre. If the sale deeds-Exs.A.1 to A.3 are eschewed from consideration, absolutely no other evidence is forthcoming to prove the higher market value prevalent as on the date of issuance of draft notification. Therefore, the reference Court rightly confirmed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.14,000/- per acre as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. But, since the claimant is entitled to the additional market value from the date of notification i.e. 21.1.1981 till the date of taking possession or award, whichever is earlier, the reference Court is not justified in awarding the additional market value from the date of taking possession. We accordingly modify the order passed by the reference Court to that extent holding that the claimant is entitled to 12% additional market value from the date of draft notification i.e. 21.1.1981 till 21.4.1981 on which date possession was taken and the claimant is also entitled to interest not only on the compensation amount but also on the additional market value and solatium. With the above modification, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. OCTOBER 07, 2009 Tsr.