THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.Nos.778 & 779 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), are filed by the Requisitioning Department questioning the enhancement of compensation made by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, dated 2.08.1999 in L.A.O.P.No.49 of 1995 and L.A.O.P.No.50 of 1995, which arose out of the common award of the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.4/1986 dated 20.09.1986. An extent of Ac.0.19 ½ guntas of land in S.No.195/2 covered by O.P.No.49 of 1995, and Ac.0.07 ½ guntas of land in S.No.50/2 covered by O.P.No.50 of 1995 along with other lands situated within the municipal limits of Khammam town were acquired by the Requisitioning Department for the purpose of laying approach road to buffer storage Food Corporation of India Godown at Burhanpuram village. In all Ac.3.06½ guntas of land was acquired. But the present O.Ps. are confined only to the extent indicated above. Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 9.02.1982 followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The possession of the land was taken on 1.08.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer by Award No.4 of 1986 dated 20.09.1986 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.20,000/- per acre for wet lands. Since none of the claimants has attended the award enquiry at any time, after passing of award, the Land Acquisition Officer ordered for deposit of the amount in the Civil Court and then he made a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act. The said reference was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.50 of 1987 where one Ravilla Shankaraiah in whose name patta stands, filed claim statement. On reference being answered on 9.03.1993 in favour of the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.50 of 1987 and 579 of 1987, holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation deposited into the Court, they received the amount under protest and sought for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court for enhancement of compensation and on such reference being made, they have appeared and filed their claim statements claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.200 per Sq. yard. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land, the second claimant in O.P.No.49 of 1995, who is the son of claimant in O.P.No.50 of 1995, was examined as PW.1, and the purchaser under Ex.A.2-slae deed was examined as PW.2 apart from marking Exs.A.1 to A.10 on their behalf. On behalf of the referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. The lower Court after taking into consideration the potentialities of the land, which was converted into house sites under a layout, held that the land is situated nearer to the Jubilee club, bus-stand, and Railway station, and the sale deeds produced by the claimants discloses that the land was sold at Rs.40/- per sq. yard as on the date of issuance of notification, and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Questioning the same, the Requisitioning Department filed the present appeal, after obtaining leave of this Court. Sri B. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India contended that the sale deeds produced under Ex.A.2 and A.5 pertain to small bits of land where the father of PW.1 sold 193.66 sq. yards in S.No.50 on 7.03.1981 @ Rs.40 per sq. yard to boost up the market value of the acquired land on coming to know the acquisition proposals and the same cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value. There is no basis for the lower Court for fixing the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. On the other hand, M/s. Chinna Baba appearing for the respondents/claimants supported the enhancement made by the lower Court contending that the lower Court deducted more than 48% while considering the bit sales and therefore, the same needs no interference. In view of the above submissions, the only point that arises for consideration is what is the true market value for which the claimants are entitled to? PW.1, who is the second claimant in O.P.No.49 of 1995 and son of the first claimant in O.P.No.50 of 1995, deposed that the acquired land is located within the municipal limits of Khammam municipality, which is evident from Ex.B.1-Award. The land in S.No.50 was already sold as house plots and constructions were also being undertaken in the said land and there was heavy demand for house sites as the adjacent lands were being divided into house plots and converted accordingly after obtaining layouts from the municipality. He further deposed that his father sold an extent of 193.66 sq. yards @ Rs.40/- per sq. yard in S.No.50. He denied the suggestion that to boost up the market value his father executed the sale deed under Ex.A.5. PW.2, who purchased an extent of 277.77 sq. yards in Plot No.60 in S.No.190 and 195, deposed that there are houses on two sides, road on one side and house plot on the other side. The land was sold at Rs.40/- per sq. yard. The property purchased by him under Ex.A.2 is at a distance of about 200 yards from the acquired land. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 to show that he is related to the claimants and interested in boosting up the value of the acquired land or that he purchased the property to help the claimants to claim more compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer, as RW.1, deposed that during the course of inspection, he noticed that Jubilee club is located at a distance of 100 yards, bus-stand was located at a distance of 400 meters, and railway station was located at a distance of 150 meters from the acquired land. Under Ex.A.1, one Smt. Rajya Lakshmi W/o. Pasumarthy Veera Bhadram sold an extent of 104 sq. yards and the same was purchased by one Venkateswarlu for a sum of Rs.41,060/-, which comes to Rs.40/- per sq. yard. Exs.A.1 and A.2 relate to small extents of house plots measuring 104 sq yards and 193.66 sq. yards respectively. The land covered under Ex.A.5 also forms part of S.No.50, which was acquired. Therefore, the same can be taken as comparable sale for fixation of market value. No deduction is called for, for the lands covered by O.P.No.50 of 1995 wherein only Ac.0.07 ½ guntas, i.e., 907 sq. yards, of land was acquired which works out to Rs.1,93,600/-, whereas the land covered by O.P.No.49 of 1995 is nearly half acre. When the evidence adduced by the claimants clearly establishes that the lands were sold at Rs.40/- per sq. yard within the vicinity of the acquired land as per Ex.A.1 and A.2-certified copies, and Ex.A.3 also discloses that the lands were divided into house plots as there was demand for house sites, the lower Court rightly taken Ex.A.5 and A.3 into consideration for fixation of market value since the same are within the municipal limits and the property under the said sale deeds is developed area where electricity and roads were connected. Since it is nearer to the railway station and also bus-stand, if we deduct 1/3 towards developmental charges, the market value of the acquired land will come to Rs.1,29,067/- per acre. Since the lower Court has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and in the absence of any cross- objections by the claimants, we confirm the fixation of market value by the lower Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. It is needless to say that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits under the amended Act, i.e. 12% additional market value on the enhanced compensation, 30% solatium, and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the realization, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1] . There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.) 11th August, 2009 Js. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516