THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.C.C.A. No. 420 of 2003 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The State represented by the Land Acquisition Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad, has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2003 passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 226 of 1991, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.120/- Sq. yd. to Rs.480/- per Sq. yd., contending that the same is on the higher side and needs reduction. The land of the respondents-claimants along with the structures existing thereon in an extent of 1428 Sq. yds. in T.S. No.2/2, Block M, Ward No.8/3, situated at B.K. Guda, Secunderabad Mandal, was acquired by the Government, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 08.12.1997, for the purpose of extension of ESI Hospital. The Land Acquisition Officer having following the procedure contemplated under the Act, conducted enquiry, and taking the market value of the land at 180/- per Sq. yd., one-third towards development, passed award dated 03.01.1991, fixing the market value of the land at Rs.120/- Sq. yd. and Rs.1,45,900/- for structures. The respondents-claimants received the compensation under protest and sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Court below, the respondents- claimants examined P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A7, while the appellant examined R.W.1 and marked Exs. B1 to B3. The Court below considering the evidence on record placed by the respondents-claimants, especially Ex. A1-sale deed which is in between a private individual and the Government, and considering that there was time lag of seven years between the said transaction and the present acquisition, felt it appropriate to give 5% escalation per year. Even though, the Court below worked the market value of the land at Rs.675/- per Sq. yd., yet took the market value at Rs.600/- Sq. yd. and after deducting 20% towards development, and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.480/- Sq. yd. by reason of the judgment and decree under appeal. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and perused the judgment and decree under appeal. The contention of the appellant that the market value of the land fixed by the Court below at Rs.480/- per Sq. yd. is on the higher side and needs reduction cannot be accepted. As can be seen from the judgment and decree under appeal, even though the respondents- claimants filed extracts of the market value register to show that the market value of the land was steadily increasing and in the year 1986 the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land reflected Rs.500/- Sq. yd., the fact remains, the Court below, did not rely on the said extracts, but took into consideration Ex.A1-sale deed, which relates to a transaction between a private individual and the Government. Under the said sale transaction, an an extent of 7.33.60 Sq. yds. of land in the same vicinity was purchased by the Government at Rs.500/- Sq. yd. Considering the said sale deed and the fact that the acquired land is situated in a developed area, is a residential plot and is abutting N.H. 9, the Court below felt it appropriate to take the sale consideration reflected therein at Rs.500/- per Sq. yd. as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land, and after giving 5% escalation, worked out the compensation to Rs.675/- Sq. yd. Even though the Court below worked out the compensation to Rs.675/-, yet it took only Rs.600/-, and after giving 20% deduction on the said amount towards development because the acquired land is situated in a developed area, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.480/- per Sq. yd. The said enhancement made by the Court below, considering the potentiality of the acquired land, cannot be said to be on the higher side warranting interference by this Court in appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondents-claimants are entitled to all other statutory benefits, including compensation for the structures, as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and upheld by thee Court bellow. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 18th July, 2011 KSR