IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.NO.147 OF 2002 Date:28-12-2010 Between:- Nyapathi Raghavendra Rao .. Appellant And Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Collector, Rajahmundry and others. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This appeal is directed against the Award in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Rajahmundry dated 27-04-2001, by which the market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per acre. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that an extent of Ac.10- 70cs of Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, was acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections beneficiaries of Rajahmundry Town. Section 4(1) notification had been published on 08-08-1985 and the draft declaration under Section 6 being published on 30-08-1985, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry, collected sales statistics and rendered his award granting Rs.30,000/- per acre as the market value along with additional market value and solatium, but without interest as possession was taken by the date of the Award. The Award dated 31-03-1987 was to the dissatisfaction of the claimants on whose protest the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Before the Reference Court, only the present appellant and the 6th claimant preferred their claims. The 6th claimant stated that though there was a reference concerning the acquisition under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act also, the land of the 6th claimant alone was acquired to an extent of Ac.5.35cs. compensation for which has to be paid to him. 4. The appellant/7th claimant claimed that the acquired land was in the midst of lands sold as house sites on yardage basis in Rajahmundry Town, which was fast developing. The acquired land is located very near the Employees’ Cooperative House Building Society lands and a factory and is in a well developed area worth Rs.2,00,000/- per acre even by that time. 5. During the enquiry, the Reference Court examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Exs.B-1 to B-5. 6. The Reference Court passed the impugned Award considering the question of just and reasonable compensation to be granted for the acquired land. The Reference Court noted that in O.P.No.88 of 1990, the appellant was held entitled to half of the compensation deposited into Court as per Ex.A-3 judgment, but O.S.No.63 of 1987 between the claimants 6 and 7 ended in a compromise on 07-08-2000. As seen from Ex.A-2-decree, the appellant alone became entitled to the entire compensation in respect of the acquired land. The Reference Court noted that the land is actually located in Pidimgoyya Gram Panchayat at a distance of one kilometer from National Highway No.5 and the dry land is in a compact block used for agricultural purposes. The Reference Court also noted that there was no attempt to convert the land into house plots before the acquisition and the land was admitted to be an agricultural land by the time of Section 4(1) notification not comparable with lands for which lay outs were already approved and conversion into house plots had already taken place. The Reference Court then proceeded to compare the documents filed by the appellant herein in support of the market value claimed by him and did not consider Ex.A-6 sale deed for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- for 400 sq.yards on 24-07-1985, as the lands sold form part of an approved lay out sanctioned fifteen years earlier. The Reference Court discarded Ex.A-7 on the ground of ignorance of P.W.8 about the payment of consideration under the document under which 400 sq.yards were sold for Rs.8,000/- on 15-07-1985. The Reference Court also did not agree to compare Ex.A-8 sale of 200 sq.yards for Rs.7,000/- on 01-08- 1985 as P.W.3 had no personal knowledge of payment of consideration under Ex.A-8 and the distance between the two lands was two or three furlongs. It did not give credence to Ex.A-9 sale deed dated 10-04-1985 for 266 2/3rd sq.yards for Rs.10,500/- as P.W.4, its attestor, spoke about the land being sold as house plots and due to the difference in values between agricultural land and house sites. The Reference Court also referred to Exs.A-1, A-5, A-10 and A- 11 but did not rely on them as the consideration under Ex.A-1 was not paid in the presence of P.W.2 and no sketch was filed showing the location of the land sold under Ex.A-1 sale deed. Ex.A-10 transaction was noted to be covering a land, which is at a distance of less than one furlong about which P.W.7, the husband of the vendor, was examined. The Reference Court also noted about the evidence of P.W.6, the purchaser’s husband, under Ex.A-11 who spoke about purchasing of land for raising a tobacco nursery for a different purpose. Ex.A-10 just a month prior to Section 4(1) notification was also opined to be not a bonafide sale transaction and thus, the Reference Court rejected the evidence of the claimant in considering the market value by the date of Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court did not also place reliance on the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 in this regard or reliance on Exs.B-2, B-3 and B-5. Thereafter, it referred to Ex.B-5 dated 16-11-1983 and the other sale transactions relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and granted an escalation of Rs.2,500/- per year for enhancing the market value to Rs.35,000/- per acre. The Reference Court considered the claimant to be entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced market value and additional amount at 12½% per annum apart from 9% per annum interest for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year after possession till the date of payment of the enhanced market value. The Award was passed accordingly along with costs of Rs.1,000/-, while stating that the claimant is not entitled to claim interest on solatium and additional market value in the light of the then prevailing decision of the Supreme Court. 7. The claimant approached this Court being aggrieved by the said Award contending that compensation could have been granted on yardage basis and that oral and documentary evidence could not have been negatived by the Reference Court. The potentiality of the acquired land for being converted into house sites is evident from the very purpose of the acquisition and the Reference Court took contradictory stands in appreciating the various sale deeds. The appellant, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.75,000/- per acre in this appeal. 8. Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for appeals are heard. 9. The point for consideration is: “What will reasonably and probably be just and adequate compensation for the acquired land representing its market value as on the date of section 4(1) notification?” 10. POINT:- The very purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections of Rajahmundry Town and the suitability of the acquired land for use as house sites is evident from the very selection of the said land for such purpose and also from the contents of the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer about the location of the land, which features were also referred to by the Reference Court. The acquired land is hardly at a distance of one kilometer from National Highway No.5 and is a compact block at a high level. The panchayat is located obviously adjacent to Rajahmundry Town, the importance and development of which can even be taken Judicial notice of. The Reference Court itself noted in its elaborate discussion about the documents about the land being in a locality where layouts for plotting of house sites were approved even about fifteen years earlier to the subject acquisition. 11. Considering the sale transactions relied on by the claimant, P.W.5, with reference to Ex.A-6 sale of 400 sq.yards for Rs.20,000/- on 24-07-1985, spoke about his selling the land at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.yard and Ex.A-6 is only one of the transactions of sale of house plots by him after obtaining a lay out. Except that he converted his land after obtaining lay out into house plots he was certain that the acquired land had same potentiality and the mere fact that the acquired lands were garden lands by the time he obtained his lay out, cannot make the acquired land any lesser in value. 12. Similarly, Ex.A-7 transaction about sale of 400 sq.yards in survey No.357 for Rs.8,000/- on 15-07-1985 was spoken to by P.W.8 the attestor of the document and his not witnessing the payment of consideration under the document is no proof of fabrication or falsity of the document. The sale was at a rate of Rs.20/- per sq.yard and the evidence of P.W.8 about the market value of the property cannot be disbelieved when truth of his attestation of the registered document was not in dispute. 13. P.W.3 speaking about Ex.A-8 transaction stated about his being Karanam of Rajahmundry earlier with the subject lands being under his jurisdiction. His attestation of Ex.A-8 registered sale deed probablises the truth of the said transaction though he was unaware of the passing of consideration under the document. 14. Ex.A-9 transaction was in respect of 266 2/3 sq.yards for Rs.10,500/- on 10-04-1985 like Ex.A-8 dated 01-08-1985 for 200 sq.yards for Rs.7,000/-. It was spoken to by the attestor of Ex.P-8 as P.W.4. He was specific that the distance between the two lands is only two or three furlongs and that even by then, the acquired land was fit for use as house sites. His failure to remember minute details about Ex.A-9 transaction is no indication of any absence of bonafides of the transaction. 15. Exs.A-1, A-5, A-10 and A-11 were discarded by the Reference Court for similar reasons though the son of the vendor was examined in respect of Ex.A-1 as P.W.2. Even in the absence of the sketch about the location of the lands sold under Ex.A-1, the claim of P.W.2 about the distance between the acquired land and the land under Ex.A-1 being only two furlongs could not have been disbelieved in the absence of any positive reason and P.W.2 being the son of the vendor under Ex.A-1 is not denied. Similarly, the transaction under Ex.A-9 is in respect of a land more nearer to the acquired land while Ex.A-10 transaction was only one month prior to section 4(1) notification. P.W.7, the husband of the vendor under Ex.A-10 spoke about the sale transaction, while the husband of the purchaser as P.W.6 spoke about Ex.A-11 transaction for sale of Ac.0-40 ½ cents for Rs.30,000/- on 09-07-1985. The purpose of his purchase makes no difference to the nearer location or comparable value of the land sold under Ex.A-11 and how the claimant could have placed any other better evidence to show the value of the land except the sale transactions that took place in or around that time is unintelligible. Even Exs.B-2, B-3 and B-5 do not show the probable values of the lands to be anything substantially less at the relevant point of time. The Reference Court itself has chosen to give the benefit of escalation of price at Rs.2,500/- per year obviously accepting the factum of increasing prices of real estate over the years which is a fact of life taken Judicial notice of even in the decisions of the Apex Court. 16. In the circumstances, practically refusing to enhance the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer except by giving a notional benefit of Rs.5,000/- per acre is not in tune with the material and the evidence on record. The appellant, as P.W.1, before the Reference Court spoke about the various transactions on which he is relying on for providing comparable material and had examined P.Ws.2 to 8 connected with the various documents in support of his version. Non-acceptance of the same is not in tune with the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence available on record. 17. In fixing the probable market value at the time of Section 4(1) notification, each of the documents on record throw considerable light and none of them can be rejected as being probablised as not genuine or bonafide. There was significant variance between the values under the documents, may be due to the sales being in respect of the plots in approved lay outs or due to the purpose for which the lands were being purchased and taking a cue from the ordinary and natural course of human events, striking an average of the values would probably reflect the then prevailing market value of the acquired lands, which notwithstanding their being agricultural lands by the time of Section 4(1) notification had every potentiality of being converted into house sites at the relevant time. The probable market value has to be arrived at in tune with the location and other features of the lands acquired and if so, the approximate value per acre may be around Rs.96,000/-. If about 1/3rd is to be deducted towards having a lay out approved for conversion of acquired land into house sites, the approximate value can be fixed at about Rs.60,000/- per acre, which fairly represents the then market value as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. 18. While compensation should be so enhanced, the claimant will be entitled to additional market value 12% per annum from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the date of passing of the Award and a solatium of 30% per annum also on the entire market value with interest on the aggregate of the market value at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for one year and at 15% per annum from the expiry of such one year till the date of payment. 19. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant No.7 is declared to be entitled to the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre with solatium at 30% on the same and an additional market value of 12% per annum on the same from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification till the date of passing of the Award with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till the expiry of one year therefrom and at 15% from after the expiry of the said one year till the date of payment and the Award dated 27-04-2001 in L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry is modified accordingly and this appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 28th December 2010 AMD