THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.522 of 1999 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) This appeal arises out of the order, dated 20.12.1993, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1985. The brief facts are as follows: An extent of Acs.8.24 cents covered by R.S.Nos.100/5 to 8 and 110/3 and 4 of Toorputallu Village of Narsapur Taluk was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (Tahsildar), Narsapur for providing house sites to the Schedule Castes, Backward Classes and other weaker sections. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the Gazette on 15.11.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the usual procedure, passed Award No.3/84-85 on 26.03.1985 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.13,888/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Act in respect of his acquired land of Ac.0.18 cents situated in R.S.No.110/3 of Toorputallu Village. In order to prove his case, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined on his behalf and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. The reference Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this appeal. Sri P.Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that the reference Court ought to have considered Exs.A.1 and A.2 and ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant. He further submitted that there is nothing to discard Exs.A.1 and A.2. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition supported the order passed by the reference Court. As seen from the evidence let in before the reference Court, P.W.1 deposed that his land of Ac.0.18 cents was acquired by the Government for providing house sites; that there is road on the North of the acquired land leading from Toorputallu to Vemuladeevi; and that the acquired land is suitable for house sites. He also deposed that one Pullparthi Satyanarayana and others sold Ac.0.25 cents of land in R.S.No.110/4 to Gummalla Ranga Rao for Rs.10,000/- on 24.10.1993 vide Ex.A.1; that one Valavala Mutyalu and his son sold Ac.0.25 cents for Rs.10,000/- in R.S.No.110/4 to Pulaparthi Satyanarayana on the same day vide Ex.A.2; that under Ex.A.3, dated 02.12.1985, Valavala Mutyalu also sold land to Anddala Krishna Rao and others; and that Donga Narasimha Swamy sold Ac.0.09 cents of land to Karimsetti Subba Rao under Ex.A.4, dated 31.12.1986. It is also his evidence that the lands covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4 are nearer to the acquired land and the potentiality of the lands covered under Exs.A.1 to A.4 and the land acquired is one and the same. P.W.2 deposed that himself and his brother sold Ac.0.25 cents of land to Pullaparthi Satyanarayana for Rs.10,000/- on 24.10.1983 under the original of Ex.A.2 and they have received the sale consideration and that the acquired land is abutting the land under Ex.A.2. P.W.3 deposed that himself and his two brothers purchased Ac.0.14 cents of land from Valavala Thambayya under Ex.A.3 for Rs.4,000/- and the said land is situated in R.S.No.92/2 of Toorputallu Village and that the acquired land is at a distance of half furlong from the land under Ex.A.3. It is also his evidence that the acquired land is abutting the main road and its value is more than the land acquired under Ex.A.3. R.W.1 deposed that the land under acquisition was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that the level of the acquired land need not be raised for providing house sites. He has also admitted that the lands under Exs.A.1 and A.2 are nearer to the acquired land and that there is a road on the North of the acquired land. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the admissions made by R.W.1 show that the acquired land is abutting the main road and that the lands covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 are near to the land acquired. Therefore, the sales under the said documents can be taken as comparable sales without any difficulty. The reference Court has taken into consideration the sale transaction dated 12.05.1983, wherein the rate per acre was shown as Rs.14,343/-. Though valid reasons have been shown to discard the sale transactions under Exs.A.1 and A.2, since the total extent of land of the claimant is only Ac.0.18 cents, the question of making deduction towards developmental charges does not arise. Therefore, considering the extent of the land of the claimant and the extent of the land covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2, we are of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to take the value mentioned under Exs.A.1 and A.2 as comparable value, and accordingly, we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs.7,200/- for Ac.0.18 cents. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,960/-, after deducting the amount awarded by the reference Court, and on the said amount, the claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 06.08.2009 va