HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY DT. 12-4-2010 AS No. 1836/1999 The Land Acquisition Officer (Assistant Collector), Bodhan …Appellant V. 1. Gandla Srinivas and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY AS No. 1836/1999 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY)) This appeal is filed against the award dt. 19-6-1998 passed in OP No.12/1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, whereunder the learned Judge allowed the reference in part enhancing the market value at Rs.40/- per sq.yard for the acquired land after deducting 1/5th extent towards developmental charges by converting the acquired land into square yards, along with statutory benefits. An extent of Ac.11-21 guntas of land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan for the purpose of providing house sites to 230 families of persons belonging to weaker sections on the proposal made by the Mandal Revenue Officer. A draft notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published on 1-3-1994. Subsequently, after following the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted the enquiry and passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.29,400/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the claimants numbering about 37 persons sought for reference to the Civil Court claiming compensation at Rs.200/- per sq.yard. During the enquiry before the reference court, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-34 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan was examined as R.W.1 and award was marked as Ex.B-1. On a consideration of the evidence made available on record, learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan found that the sale transaction contained in Ex.A-34-sale deed was duly proved by examining P.W.3 and after making necessary deductions fixed the market value at Rs.40/- per sq.yard and further directed that 1/5th extent on conversion of acquired land into sq.yards be deducted towards developmental charges. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bodhan under Sec. 54 of the Act. The only contention raised by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals is that the reference court erred in placing reliance upon Ex.A-34 as the land covered by Ex.A-34 is a small bit of house site plot situated in a well developed colony. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants, on the other hand, contended that the reference court has not entirely relied upon the transaction contained in Ex.A-34 and duly taking note of the fact that the said plot is situated in a developed colony and is a small bit, the court below has made certain substantial deduction in the market value from Rs.60/- to Rs.40/- and further directed deduction of 1/5th of the extent towards developmental charges and in view of the double deduction, no further interference with the impugned order is called for. The claimants mainly relied upon two sale transactions covered by Exs.A-33 and A-34 in support of their claim regarding the market value. According to them, small bits in extent are situated in close proximity to the acquired land. It is to be noted that the said land was also acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections numbering 230 families. The extent pertaining to each of the respondents-claimants out of the acquired land is also small extents. Under Ex.A-33, P.W.2 purchased 190 sq.yards for a consideration of Rs.31,400/-, which works out to Rs.165/- per sq.yard. The sale took place on 3-8-1993, which was approximately 7 months prior to the date of notification. The plot covered by Ex.A-33 was situated in S.No.423. The said transaction is duly proved through the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that the said plot is situated in teachers’ colony which is adjacent to another colony called Sreerama Colony, close to the acquired land. The said teachers’ colony is said to have been formed in 1991 itself. The reference court has discarded the transaction covered by Ex.A-33 only on the ground that the said plot is situated in a well-developed housing colony, whereas the acquired land is yet to be developed into a colony. However, the reference court has taken note of the transaction covered by Ex.A-33 for the purpose of saying that the acquired land is also having good potentiality for development into a housing colony. The reference court further placed reliance on Ex.A-34, the transaction covered under it was duly proved through the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 is an attestor of Ex.A-34-sale deed. It was suggested in the cross-examination that P.W.3 was closely related to the purchaser under Ex.A-34 and, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. The reference court has rightly rejected the said objection as the same does not come in the way of proving the genuineness of the transaction covered under Ex.A- 34. Under Ex.A-34, a house site measuring 153 sq.yards was purchased for Rs.,9180/-, which works to Rs.60/- per sq.yard. It is to be noted here the transaction covered under Ex.A-34 took place in the year 1987, which was almost 7 years prior to the date of notification. The evidence on record also shows that the plot covered by Ex.A-34 is situated admittedly 70 yards away from the acquired land. Though it was suggested that the distance is much more than 70 yards, no contra evidence is placed by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove the same. Under those circumstances, the reference court was justified in placing reliance upon Ex.A-34, under which house site plot of 153 sq.yards was purchased at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. yard. As stated supra, the reference court has not implicitly followed the market value as per Ex.A-34 and made deduction of 1/3 and fixed the market value at Rs.40/- per sq.yard on the ground that the plot covered by Ex.A- 33 is a small bit and situated in a developed colony. Thus, the market value fixed by the reference court at Rs.40/- per sq. yard cannot under any circumstances be unreasonable or excessive in view of the fact that the transaction covered under Ex.A-34 has taken place seven years prior to the date of notification and during the period of seven years there must have been escalation in marker price, which is evident from Ex.A-33, whereunder the house site plot was sold at Rs.165/- per sq.yard, one year prior to the date of notification. Under those circumstances the reference court has made further deduction of 1/5th extent after converting the acquired land into sq.yards towards developmental charges. The claimants have not preferred any cross-objections for seeking further enhancement or questioning the deduction made by the reference court either in the market rate of a comparable sale transaction or in the extent. Under those circumstances, the impugned order passed by the reference court fixing the market rate at Rs.40/- per sq.yard does not call for any interference and the said market rate is found to be just and reasonable. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ ‐ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Date: 12-4-2010 kmr