THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1798 of 1995 Date of Judgment: 15-03-2010 Between: 1. Syed Sharfuddin and another ..Appellants and The LAO-cum-MRO, Pargi, R.R.District. ..Respondent The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1798 of 1995 Oral Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. This claimants’ appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) seeking further enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy District passed in O.P.No.117 of 1989 dated 05-07- 1995. 2. An extent of Ac.1.21 gts. and Ac.1.18 gts. of land situated in Sy.Nos.56 and 114 belongs to the claimants has been acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published in the A.P. Gazette on 08-06-1978. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) after complying due formalities by his Award dated 12-03- 1985 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1800/- per acre. The claimants, who have not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly the matter was referred to the civil court for due determination of the market value. On receipt of notice from the reference Court, the claimants filed their claim statements claiming compensation at Rs.20/- per square yard for the acquire land. 3. To prove the market value of the acquired land, claimant No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the Referring Officer, MRO was examined as R.W.1 and award copy was marked as Ex.B1. 4. P.W.1 deposed that the acquired land is fertile land situated near the village and it is 1½ KMs. distance from Parigi town, which is a developed one; there is much demand for house sites and market value prevalent at the time of issuance of notification is at Rs.20/- per square yard; under Ex.A17 one Mr.Balaiah sold 288 square yards in favour of Sadiq on 06-06-1984 for Rs.2,000/-, but in the cross-examination he admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the prevailing market value is Rs.20,000/- per acre. 5. The claimants filed Exs.A1 & A2—certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.4 of 1991 and certified copy of the judgment passed in A.S.Nos.2302 and 2303 of 1984—Ex.A3; certified copy of the judgment in A.S.No.571 of 1989—Ex.A4; certified copy of the judgment made in O.P.No.252 of 1985 dated 28-06-1989—Ex.A5; certified copy of the judgment passed in A.S.No.199 of 1992—Ex.A6 and certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06-06-1984—Ex.A7. 6. The lower Court has rightly not taken into consideration Exs.A1 and A2—certified copies of judgment and decree in O.P.No.4 of 1991, whereby the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.36/- per square yard for Ac.1.35 gts. of land, which was acquired by the Government through notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28-08-1989; whereas the notification of land covered by present appeal is 10 years prior to above notification. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in A.S.No.199 of 1992 whereby this Court fixed the market value at Rs.11/- per square yard as against Rs.6/- fixed by the reference Court, in which 4(1) notification was issued on 30-04-1979 i.e. nearly 11 months after the issuance of present notification. Further, this Court relied upon the judgment in A.S.Nos.2302 & 2303 of 1984—Ex.A3 where Ac.1.29 gts. of land in Parigi town was acquired for providing house sites. The LAO determined the market value at Rs.3.33 ps. per square yard and on reference the civil court enhanced to Rs.11/- per square yard and the same has been confirmed by this Court in the said appeal. Further, in Ex.A6 an extent of 1516 square yards in Sy.No.9 and 7260 square yards in Sy.No.10 of Parigi town was acquired for locating the agricultural market yard through notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28-07-1977. The LAO awarded compensation at Rs.1.31 ps. per square yard. On reference being made the civil Court fixed the market value at Rs.6/- per square yard. On further appeal, this Court after taking into consideration the sale deed of the year 1975 which was filed in O.P.No.350 of 1979 where 2½ gts. of land equivalent to 272 square yards was sold for Rs.3,000/- which works out to Rs.11/- per square yard and accordingly enhanced the compensation at Rs.11/- per square yard. The said lands, which were acquired, are in the heart of the Parigi town, whereas the evidence adduced by the parties shows that the lands in the present acquisition are adjacent to the village and 1 to 3 kilometers away from the Parigi town. 7. The reference Court after taking into consideration that the lands acquired are in Syed Malkapur village, which is 1 to 3 kilometers away from the Parigi town, fixed the market value at Rs.5/- per square yard which appears to be reasonable and do not call for any interference, since no sale deeds of the village Syed Malkapur has been filed to substantiate the plea of the claimants about potentiality of the land or the market value prevalent in the said village or nearby the acquired land. 8. P.W.1 admitted that Parigi town is 1½ kilometers from the village and the lands are situated nearby the village and not even in the village and the lands covered by Exs.A2 and A3 are in the Pargi town and acquired for providing house sites. The sale deed—Ex.A7, dated 06-06-1984, on which the claimants relied upon, is 6 years after issuance of present notification i.e. 08-06-1978. Therefore, the same cannot form basis for fixation of the market value. If the same is eschewed, there is no other evidence. We accordingly confirm the market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.5/- per square yard. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants nextly contended that the lower Court committed an error in calculating the area. For Ac.2.39 gts. it comes to 14409 square yards, but in the decree it was noted as 9139.20 square yards which appears to be a mistake in drafting the decree. We accordingly modify the decree substituting the land as 14409 square yards in the place of 9139.20 square yards. 10. The appeal is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J. 15-03-2010 Murthy