IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.1329 OF 1999 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS Between: Land Acquisition Officer (Assistant Collector), Warrangal. … Petitioner And 1. Natraj Nirmala (died-per LR –R2) 2. Natraj Hema. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.1329 OF 1999 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal and the cross-objections, by the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimants respectively, directed against the order of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warrangal dated 15.12.1998, passed in O.P.No.187 of 1995, are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. An extent of Ac.0-37 guntas of land belonged to the claimants in S.No.5, 264 and 265 of Lashkar Singaram village for formation of 100 feet Master Plan Road was acquired, by publishing a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) in the gazette on 26.05.1981. Since the claimants have not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer, he fixed the market value for the acquired land at Rs.15/- per square yard. On coming to know the same, the claimants requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the civil Court contending that they were not issued any notice by him before passing the award. As the same was not referred, the claimants filed W.P.No.19428 of 1993 for reference under Section 18 of the Act and as per the orders passed by this Court, the matter was referred to the civil Court. On such reference being made, claimants appeared and filed claim statement claiming that the land acquired to an extent of 1300 sq.yds is a valuable land, which costs Rs.350/- per sq.yd at the time of issuance of the notification. To prove the market value, claimant No.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and another witness, who is the resident of Warrangal, examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. The documents under Exs.A1 to A7 shows the title of the claimants over the suit schedule property and Ex.A8 is a sale deed dated 06.04.1998 i.e., 17 years after the acquisition. The trial court rightly discarded the same, as the same cannot be a comparable sale for fixation of the market value. Coming to the oral evidence adduced by the claimants, P.W.1 deposed that there are number of houses and colonies which have come up near the acquired land and which is a more valuable property and claimant No.2 is her younger sister and that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award without issuing any notice to them. P.W.2, who is a resident of Warrangal, deposed that All India Radio Station, Kakatiya University, T.B.Hospital and Karimnagar Bus Stop are situated at Nayeemnagar, which are within a distance of half kilometre to the land acquired by the Government. His evidence also further shows that 100 feet road was laid from Fathimanagar up to Warrangal through the acquired land where there are number of residential houses in that locality. But in the cross-examination he admitted that at the time of acquisition, there were no colonies in the year when the land was acquired by the Government, which have recently been established. The observation of the land acquisition officer in his award proceedings that the lands adjacent to the acquired land was sold at Rs.2.15 ps. upto Rs.56.80 ps., where the document was shown at page No.3 in Sl.No.14 of award proceedings, discloses that the land was sold at Rs.56.80 ps. per square yard. But the same was discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer stating that it is abutting to the main road and, therefore, the purchaser paid more price and that the said document is five months prior to the issuance of the notification. Further, the award proceedings also discloses that on the date of publishing the draft notification, the land under acquisition was situated in a developed area very near to Kakatiya University and houses have come up in the surroundings and that the acquired land has potentiality to be used as house sites. Keeping the same in view, the reference Court after taking into consideration the sale deed mentioned at Sl.No.14 as a comparable sale for fixation of the market value, rounded of to Rs.60/- per sq.yd. and accordingly, fixed the market value. Questioning the same, the present appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer and the cross-objections by the claimants seeking further enhancement. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer and also the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. The learned counsel for the respondents failed to establish the market value claimed in one of the grounds i.e., ground No.2 in the cross-objections, which discloses that on the date when the O.P. was decided, the market value was Rs.2,000/- per sq.yd., and therefore, they are entitled to compensation at Rs.2,000/- per sq.yd. Pending appeal, respondent No.1 died, sister of respondent No.1, who is on record was recorded as her legal representative vide LA.AS.MP.No.1528 of 2006, dated 28.09.2006. It is now fairly well settled that highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by Government should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. The evidence adduced by the parties also discloses that the acquired land was having potentiality to be used as house sites as on the date of issuance of the notification and was adjacent to Kakatiya University, T.B.Hospital and All India Radio Station, which were situated within a distance of half kilometre to the acquired land and 100 feet road was also laid. Since both the claimants are ladies and residing at Vijayawada, they could not obtain the sale deeds and produce the same before the reference Court. Therefore, the reference Court after going through the entire award and the reasoning adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, persuaded himself to consider the sale price indicated therein, as a comparable sale for fixation of the market value and the conclusion reached by the reference Court in fixing the market value, cannot be faulted with, when the valuable property of the claimants are deprived. We find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the reference court in fixing the market value, which was fixed basing upon the reasoning adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer about the potentiality of the land and in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the respondents to show that the land value is Rs.350/- per square yard. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15.03.2010 lmv