THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD A.S.No.1278 of 1995 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), is preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, against the order and decree dated 05.08.1992 in O.P.No.170 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: As per the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 22.07.1981, the Revenue Divisional Officer had acquired the land of an extent of Ac:0.86 cents in Sy.No.269-2B-2 situated near Krupananda Nagar colony, C.S.I.Church and Sri Satyasaibaba Kalyana Mandapam, Anantapur, for the purpose of house sites. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after following the procedure prescribed under law, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.1,234/- per acre i.e, Rs.12,000-52ps for the acquired land under the award No.3/82 dated 25.03.1983. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming higher compensation, and the same has been referred by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, for determination of the market value of the said acquired land and it was taken on file by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, as O.P.No.170 of 1985. 3. In order to establish his claim, the respondent-claimant examined PWs.1 to 4, but no document was marked. On behalf of the appellant, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, on consideration of the material available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per cent and as the claimant had already received an amount of Rs.12,000-52ps, she is entitled to claim remaining amount with all benefits as per the amended Act. Dissatisfied with the said compensation, the claimant filed the present appeal. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole respondent- claimant died and her legal representatives respondents 2 to 8 were brought on record. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition vehemently contended that the Court below has committed error in enhancing the compensation at abnormal and excessive rate. He contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer after taking note of the sale statistics in respect of the surrounding areas determined the market value of the land in question in proper perspective. He further contended that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence before the reference Court so as to justify the enhancement of compensation made by the reference Court. 8 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that there is no documentary evidence produced by the claimants, but nonetheless, the government officials-P.Ws.1 and 3 deposed that the market value for the acquired land from 1975 to 1980 was at Rs.3,600/-per cent. He further contended that as the land in question is situated in Anantapur Town and acquired for the purpose of house sites, the Court below has fixed the compensation in right perspective. 9. We have perused the order under appeal. Admittedly, no documentary evidence adduced by the claimants so as to justify the claim for enhancement of compensation. The burden is on the claimants to adduce oral and documentary evidence so as to claim higher compensation. But in this case, P.Ws.1 and 3, the government officials have deposed in their chief examination that according to the basic value register, market value of the acquired land from 1975 to 1980 was at Rs.3,600/-per cent and that from 1980 onwards, it was enhanced to Rs.5,150/-per cent. P.W.2, the claimant deposed that by the date of notification, the market value of the sites in the vicinity of their land was at Rs.5,000/-per cent. P.W.4, who is the adjacent owner of the acquired land, deposed that he purchased the land of an extent of Ac:0-07-75 cents at Rs.3,500/-per cent. The Reference Court based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 has rightly enhanced the compensation. Apart from that since the acquired land is situated within Anantapur Municipal limits, adjacent to Government Headquarters Hospital, it has got potential value. 10. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit warranting interference by this Court in the order under appeal. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium from the date of notification under Section 4(1) i.e., 22.07.1981 till the date of the award i.e.,25.03.1982. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:02.02.2010. sj