THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 1613 of 1999 Oral Judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, VUDA, aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.1997 passed by the III Additional District, Visakhapatnam, in O.P. No. 781 of 1996, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7.50 ps. to Rs.20/- per square yard in favour of the respondents-claimants, has filed this A.S. The land in an extent of Acs. 1.16 cents belonging to the respondents-claimants was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, for the purpose of house sites and services under NAD scheme for VUDA, after issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the year 1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, conducted award enquiry and after calling for objections, passed award dated 18.12.1987, awarding compensation of Rs.7.50 ps. per square yard. The respondents-claimants received the compensation under protest and sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to whom the reference was made over, in O.P. No. 781 of 1996, after conducting full-fledged trial, and considering the evidence placed by the parties, passed the impugned award dated 17.11.1997, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7.50 ps. to Rs.20/- per square yard. Questioning the said enhancement award, the appellant filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Court below, is on the higher side and needs reduction. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the appellant-Government mainly submitted that the Court below having found that the average market value of the acquired land is somewhere in between Rs.16/- to Rs.20/- per square yard, committed a grave error in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.7.50 ps. to Rs.20/- per square yard, basing on Exs. A1 and A2-sale deeds, which relate to sale transactions involving small extents of lands. Hence, he prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the awarded passed by the Court below be modified reducing the compensation awarded suitably. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even the respondents-claimants produced sale deeds showing that the prevailing market value of the land in and around the acquired land was Rs.51/- to Rs.70/- per square yard, and even though C.Ws.1 to 4 in their evidence stated that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.40/-, but considering the fact that the evidence of C.Ws. related to small extents of land, and having regard to the fact that the sale deeds, produced before the Land Acquisition Officer, showed that the market value of the land ranged from Rs.1/- to Rs.70/- per square yard, and considering the fact that large number of such sale deeds disclosed that the value of the land was between Rs.16/- to Rs.20/- per square yard, felt it appropriate to enhance the compensation from Rs.7.50/- ps. to Rs.20/-, and accordingly enhanced the compensation, and no interference is warranted therewith. He thus prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. As can be seen from the award under appeal, the land in an extent of Acs. 1.16 cents belonging to the appellant was acquired by the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer, passed award fixing compensation of Rs.7.50 per square yard, and in fixing so, he took into consideration about 696 sale transactions, ranging from Rs.1/- to Rs.70/- square yard. The Court below having noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer, in working out the average market value of the land, has merely taken into consideration 161 sale deeds, opined that the same is irregular, and in working out the average, felt that the Land Acquisition Officer, ought to have out the average market value, based on 418 sale deeds. Having felt so, the Court below took into consideration 418 sale deeds, of which 134 sale deeds showed that the market value of the land was Rs.21/- to Rs.30/- square yard, and further considering the fact that Exs. A1 and A2-sale deeds, which are dated prior to the acquisition notification, disclosed that the land was sold at Rs.40/- per square yard, which is strengthened with the evidence of C.Ws. 1 to 4, who deposed that the market value of the land in the area was Rs.40/- per square yard, the Court below felt it appropriate to fix the market value of the land at Rs.20/-, and in fixing so, it mainly relied on Exs. A1 and A2-sale deeds. There is no doubt that Exs. A1 and A2-sale deeds, relate to sale transactions involving small extents of land, and compensation cannot be fixed to large extents of land, basing on sale deeds involving small extents, but the Court below while relying on Exs. A1 and A2, took into consideration the fact that the land covered by Exs. A1 and A2, was near to the acquired land, that the acquired land was located near a developed area, and that it was near to the main road and the National Highway and that it was suitable for house sites, and it was also not disputed by the appellant that the Lok Adalat, passed an award in respect of the lands located near to the acquired land by granting Rs.18/- per square yard. That apart, it is required to be noticed that the land in question, was acquired for house sites by VUDA as is evident from the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, and even though Exs. A1 and A2-sale deeds coupled with the evidence of C.Ws. 1 to 4, disclosed that the market value of the lands situated in and around the acquired land was Rs.40/-, yet the Court below did not grant the compensation as mentioned therein, but felt it appropriate to grant just half of the same, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhancement of compensation, made by the Court below by reason of the order under appeal, from Rs.7.50 ps. to Rs.20/- per square yard, cannot be said to be on the higher side, warranting interference therewith by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 18th April, 2011 KSR