IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT Nos.289, 303 AND 712 OF 2000 Between: Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Nelakondapally … Appellant And D.Subash. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT Nos.289, 303 AND 712 OF 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These three appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Mandal Revenue Officer, Nelakondapally under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”), directed against the common order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in L.A.O.P.Nos.4, 3 and 2 of 1989, dated 05.03.1999, are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the lands belonged to the respondents/ claimants measuring Ac.4-05 guntas in survey No.199/4, Ac.4-04 guntas in survey No.199/4 and Ac.2-11 guntas in survey No.199/3 of Rajeswarapuram village were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of Sankaragirithanda, by publishing a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 10.04.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the necessary formalities passed an award No.3/87-88, dated 31.03.1988 fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.5,500/- per acre. Claimants on receipt of the amount under protest, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court. On such reference being made to the civil Court, the civil Court received the reference in the above O.Ps., and clubbed all the O.Ps., together and common evidence has been recorded in O.P.No.4 of 1989. To prove the inadequacy of the market value, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the claimants and registered sale deeds were marked under Exs.A1 and A2, certified copies of the pahani for the year 1987-88 were marked as Exs.A3 to A5 and the booklet issued by the Managing Director, Sugar Factory, Rajeswarapuram was marked as Ex.A6. On behalf of the referring officer, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1-Award was marked. P.W.1, the claimant in O.P.No.4 of 1989, deposed that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of eight kilometres from Mandal head quarters and one and half kilometre away from Rajeswarapuram village. He deposed that the land sold under Exs.A1 and A2 registered sale deeds are at a distance of half kilometre away from the acquired lands. He further deposed that they used to raise commercial crops like redgram and chillies in the acquired lands under Ex.A1. Claimant in O.P.No.2 of 1989 was examined as P.W.2, who executed Ex.A1 sale deed, dated 18.05.1983 where 500 square yards of house site in S.No.373/2A was sold for Rs.5,000/- at Rs.10/- per square yard. He deposed that the said house site is within the village and adjacent to the main road. Under Ex.A2, which is a post notification sale deed, 520 square yards of house site in survey No.373/2 was sold at Rs.25/- per square yard for total consideration of Rs.13,000/-. The vendor under Ex.A2, who was examined as P.W.3 also admitted that the land covered under Ex.A2 is situated in Rajeswarapuram village and also supported the evidence of P.W.1 that they used to raise groundnut, redgram, maize, chillies, sugarcane in the land sold. The reference Court rejected both the sale deeds on the ground that Ex.A2 is a post notification sale deed and the same was sold as a house site and hence it cannot be a comparable sale to fix the market value of the acquired lands, at Rs.18,000/- per acre on the basis of average yield of Rs.1,800/- per acre per year for Ac.10- 20 guntas of land acquired. Under Ex.A1, though it is prior to issuance of the notification, it relates to the house sites and also in the village, but not nearer to the acquired lands. If the same is excluded, there is no other evidence except the oral evidence of the parties apart from the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer on capitalisation method. The Land Acquisition Officer taking the yield of redgram at 2.5 quintals per acre and the cost of one quintal of redgram at Rs.515/- and after giving 50% deduction, arrived the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.5,500/- per acre. R.W.1 examined to prove the market value arrived by him, admitted in the cross-examination that the average yield from the lands of Rajeswarapuram village is 4 to 5 quintals of redgram and the yield made upto 8 quintals, if there is good recovery. Therefore, the reference court hypothetically fixed 6 quintals of redgram as an average yield and arrived the income at Rs.3,600/- per acre, after giving 50% deduction towards expenses, the net income was arrived at Rs.1,800/- per acre and applying 10 years multiplier, arrived the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.18,000/- per acre. Since the evidence adduced by the claimants has also been supported by the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer and the commercial crops like redgram were used to be raised in the acquired lands, the deduction at 50% for the cultivation cost of redgram is not at all justifiable. In fact it can be only 1/4th. If 1/4th is deducted the net income can be arrived at Rs.2,700/- per acre. In the absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants, we are not inclined to interfere with the fixation of the market value at Rs.1,800/- per acre by the reference Court. Accordingly, the appeal suits are dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th April 2010 lmv