IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.2314 of 1998 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. .. Appellant AND Guda Rami Reddy .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.2314 of 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.7 of 1991, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gooty, dated 31.08.1998. 2. For construction of 132/11 K.M. Sub-Station at Nandalapadu Village of Tadipatri Mandal, the land in question was acquired in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), dated 03.07.1987. While the possession of the land was taken on 11.08.1986, Award No.1/90 was passed after compliance with the formalities on 10.04.1990 in respect of Ac. 2.79 cents in S.No.166-H1. The fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer was to the dissatisfaction of the claimant on whose protest, a reference was made to the civil Court. 3. Before the civil Court, the claimant contended that the fixation of the market value at Rs.9,000/- per acre was unjust as the then prevailing market value was Rs.50,000/- per acre. Under the very sale transactions referred to in the award, the prices fetched were much more than fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimant contended that the main road is only at a distance of 20 yards from the acquired land with high potentiality being irrigated under T.H.L. Canal. The area is an industrially developed and commercial area and the value of the land was more than Rs.60,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition. The claimant also claimed damages of Rs.1,50,000/- as the loss of the front portion of the land adversely effected the value of the remaining land. The land was also claimed to be having a potential of being sold on yardage basis at Rs.12/- per square yard. 4 . His claims were not responded to by the Land Acquisition Officer through any pleading before the reference Court. 5. The reference Court, after framing the points for consideration on the questions of market value and damages, examined P.W.1 and C.W.1 during the enquiry and marked Ex.A-1-Award. 6. In the impugned award, the reference Court noted that the acquired land is very near to Tadipatri town and is only 20 yards away from Tadipatri–Anantapur Road. It was also noted that the agricultural land is surrounded by agricultural lands on all the sides with assured irrigation under Tungabhadra high level canal. The reference Court also noted that most of the commercial establishments around the land are slab polishing units and there was also a dearth of house sites within the limits of Tadipatri municipality. The reference Court also referred in detail to the eleven Sale Deeds referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer for determination of the market value and noting that even in 1986, the land was sold at Rs.25,000/- per acre in S.No.157, another two sales, dated 19.06.1986, evidencing sales at Rs.13,333/- and Rs.15,000/- were also noted. The reference Court further found that the acquired land is nearer to Tadipatri town than those lands. The non-examination of the Revenue Divisional Officer who made the personal inspection before the award was also taken adverse notice of and the pace of development of Tadipatri town was also noted. The reference Court, hence, concluded that the value of Rs.9,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer can never be considered reasonable and proper and even if the value of Rs.60,000/- per acre or Rs.12/- per square yard claimed by the claimant before the Court or Rs.50,000/- per acre claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer are high and excessive, the value of the land cannot be less than Rs.18,000/- per acre by the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. While rejecting the claim for any damages in view of the absence of any evidence in that regard, the reference Court, therefore, fixed the market value at Rs.18,000/- per acre and granted solatium, additional amount and interest as per the statute to the claimant. 7. Aggrieved by the said grant of compensation, the State is before this Court with this appeal claiming that the reference Court erred in appreciation of the evidence placed before it and not placing the burden of proof on the claimant and the appellant pleaded that grant of compensation after thorough scrutiny of sales statistics by the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have been upheld. 8. Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for appellant and Sri K.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent are heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the fixation of market value by the reference Court is not just or reasonable? 10. The impugned order by the reference Court is not based on any material extraneous to that considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court did not base its conclusions on any exaggerated claims made by the claimant as C.W.1. The reasoning is based on the admissions of P.W.1 examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer and the sales statistics relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer himself in the impugned award. The nearness of the acquired land to Tadipatri town than the lands covered by the eleven sale transactions referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer being not in dispute, the presumption of the reference Court about the acquired land being capable of fetching higher value cannot be considered divorced from broad human probabilities. The pace of development of Tadipatri town, the scarcity of house sites within the limits of Tadipatri Municipality, the acquired land being almost adjacent to Tadipatri–Anantapur main road, the acquired land having source of irrigation for cultivation like the lands around, the acquired land being in the midst of slab polishing units and other commercial establishments and the potentiality of the acquired land due to the various factors deduced by the reference Court in its award are inferences reasonably based on the evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.A-1-Award. In fact, some of the sales covered by the award and not found to be not genuine in any manner and anterior to Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act fetched a much higher value like the document No.2611, dated 08.08.1986, under which the land was sold for Rs.25,000/- per acre. Still the reference Court was conservative, may be keeping the public interest in view and confined the grant of compensation only to Rs.18,000/- per acre. Consequential grant of statutory benefits is a matter of right and the claimant cannot be further disadvantaged by any reduction of such compensation in this appeal. 11. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20th January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.2314 of 1998 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Date: 20th January, 2011 KL