IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1586 of 1999 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Kurnool ..... APPELLANT AND P.Kristaphar .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1586 of 1999 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed by Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Kurnool, aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.1998 in O.P.91/1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 2. The respondent is the claimant. Pursuant to the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) published on 31.07.1992, an extent of Ac.0.14 in Sy.No.450/3B situated at Nallakalva village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District was acquired for the purpose of formation of percolation tank. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.2/93 dated 27.08.1993 determining the compensation @Rs.12,500/- per acre for dry land and @Rs.15,000/- per acre for wet land. 3. The claimant received the compensation on protest and requested to refer the matter to civil Court for fixing of true and actual market value of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Sec.18 of the Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur in O.P.91/1994. The Reference Court tried the OP.91/1994 along with other batch of OPs and passed common award enhancing the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per acre. 4. In support of the claim of the claimant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked and on behalf of Land Acquisition Officer, RW 1 was examined and the copy of the award was marked as Ex.B1. 5. PW 1 is the claimant in some other O.P.No.85/1994 and PW 2 is the vendee of Ex.A1 sale deed. Both of them stated that the acquired land is valuable land and they used to raise crops like paddy, cotton, groundnut and sunflower and the land used to give yield of 25 bags of paddy per acre and in case of groundnut it used to give yield of 25 to 30 bags per acre. However, the claimant ultimately relied on Ex.A1 sale deed which relates to sale of one acre of land in Sy.No.447/3 of the same village Nallakalva for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Thus, it is the claim of the claimant that they are entitled to compensation @Rs.40,000/- though they have claimed compensation @Rs.60,000/- per acre. 6. The Reference Court discarded Ex.A1 sale deed on the ground that the possession was taken on 15.12.1988, whereas Ex.A1 sale deed is dated 19.02.1992 which is much subsequent to the date of taking of possession. Admittedly, Sec.4(1) notification was issued on 31.07.1992 whereas Ex.A1 is five months prior to the date of notification. As possession was taken prior to the date of Sec.4(1) notification, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court rightly declined to rely on the said document. However, keeping in view of the various sale transactions which were referred to in the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court fixed the compensation @Rs.20,000/- per acre. 7. We are of the opinion that the enhancement of compensation @Rs.20,000/- per acre in respect of the land acquired in 1992 appears to be just and reasonable. However, we do not see any justification in awarding interest on the market value from the date of taking possession. The claimant is entitled to interest only from the date of issuance of Sec.4(1) notification. Any damages caused, it is always open for the claimant to work out his remedies. We are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to additional market value @12% p.a. and interest @9% p.a. as awarded by the Reference Court under clauses-(2) and (4) from the date of Sec.4(1) notification only, but not from the date of taking possession of land. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order against the relief of additional market value and interest as awarded by the Reference Court under clauses (2) and (4) of the result portion. We are not inclined to interfere with the other reliefs granted by the Reference Court under clauses-(1), (3), (5) and (6) of the result portion of the impugned order 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 02.09.2010 Dsr