THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD APPEAL SUIT Nos.1782, 1783 OF 1998 AND 446 OF 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) These Appeal Suits arise out of the common judgment and decree in O.P. Nos.774, 775 and 776 of 1996 dated 17-11-1997 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, as such, they are taken up for disposal together by this common judgment. 2. Heard Smt. V. Preethi Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant – the Land Acquisition Officer, and Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants in all the matters. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the requisition sent by the Chairman, VUDA, Visakhapatnam for acquisition of the lands, the Land Acquisition Officer by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) dated 16-07-1984 acquired the lands covered by Survey Nos.29/1B, 2B 30/1B, 28, 31/1B, 33/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of Block No.29 admeasuring Acs.16-20 cents of Kurmannapalem village for public purposes, sites and services, under L.A.D. Scheme. The present subject land belonging to the claimants in all the appeals is covered by Survey No.31/1B. Thereafter, a regular enquiry was conducted and the award dated 04- 06-1986 was passed, whereby the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.7-50 paise per square yard. Being not satisfied with the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and thus the matters were taken up by the trial Court. 4. During the course of enquiry, which is conducted commonly by clubbing all the O.Ps., evidence was adduced in O.P. No.774 of 1996. To prove their case, claimants got examined CWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 5. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants, CWs.1, 3 and 4 are the respective claimants and they were supported by CWs.2 and 5 and out of the documents produced on behalf of the claimants, Ex.A-1 is the layout plan, Exs.A-2 and A-3 are sale transactions dated 03-05-1983 and 15-04-1982 respectively. Whereas, RW.1 is the referring officer and the documents produced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer are Exs.B-1 and B-2, which are statement of the Land Acquisition Officer and a plan respectively. 6. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20/- per square yard and accordingly awarded the same to the claimants. Aggrieved of the value fixed for the acquired land by the trial Court, the Land Acquisition preferred these appeals contending that the value fixed by the trial Court for the acquired land is excessive, arbitrary and without any basis. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant contends that having regard to the situation of the land, the trial Court ought not to have enhanced the value of the land at such a higher rate especially in the absence of any material. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the findings of the trial Court and submitted that in fact the claimants are entitled to much more rate than what is fixed by the trial Court and they ought to have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the value of the land but they did not. 9. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perusing the material on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the market rate as determined by the trial Court is just and reasonable. 10. There is no dispute that the acquired land is situated in the village of Kurmannapalem village and it is adjacent to Visakhapatnam urban development area. The very classification of the acquired land itself is for the purpose of sites and services and for construction activity which itself is sufficient to indicate the purpose for which it was to be used. The evidence of CWs.1, 3 and 4 coupled with the evidence of CWs.2 and 5 shows that the land is situated at a distance of less than 1 K.M. to the main town and there is every possibility of development of industrial and residential area in that locality and that the Visakhaptnam is a big city from the beginning and it is a fast developing city. Further, claimants placed reliance on Exs.A-1 to A-3 sale transactions. Admittedly, the transactions covered by Exs.A-1 to A-3 dated 03-05-1983 and 15-04-1982 respectively are much prior to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under Exs.A-2 an extent of 230 square yards of house site was sold for a total consideration of Rs.9,000/- and under Ex.A-3 an extent of 301 or 302 square yards of house site was sold for a total consideration of Rs.12,000/-, which is working out to at Rs.40/- per square yard. On the other hand, there is no evidence to rebut the claimants’ evidence and its correctness. The trail Court by deducting 50% out of the value for which the land was sold under Exs.A-2 and A- 3, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20/- per square yard. In rebuttal, we do not find any valid material forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to show that the market value of the acquired land could have been lesser than what is fixed by the trial Court. 11. In the circumstances and especially in the absence of any rebuttal evidence to dispute the claim as made by the claimants and also against the market rate fixed by the trial Court, we do not see any error in fixing the market value at Rs.20/- per square yard for the acquired land by the trial Court and we are of the view that the same is just and reasonable. Thus, there are no merits in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, these Appeal Suits are dismissed with costs. It is also made clear that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits including interest on solatium and additional market value etc., as per the amended provisions of the Act. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J January 28, 2011. __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J PV