THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.954 OF 1998 Dated. 31-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Vikarabad …Appellant Vs. P.Singaiah and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.954 of 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad in O.P.No.16 of 1994 enhancing the market value of the acquired land. An extent of Ac.30.12 guntas of land located in several survey numbers, situated at Sirpuram Village was acquired for construction of percolation tank at Sirpuram village and draft notification was given on 14-03-1991 and an award enquiry was conducted and market value was fixed at Rs.7,500/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the fixation of the market value and at their request, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimants claimed that the land is potential with crop yielding capacity and the market value shall be fixed at Rs.50,000/- with all attendant benefits. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the referring officer RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge, enhanced the market value from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS: There is no doubt about the fact that in a claim of this nature, the burden is on the claimants to prove the potentialities and the real market value and further prove that the Land Acquisition Officer has granted the market value at a lower rate ignoring the reality. In support of the claim, PW.1 who is one of the claimants claimed that the entire lands are black cotton lands and raised cash crops and the village is a developed one. He filed Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 19-03-1980 where under the land in Sy.No.240 to an extent of Ac.1.01 guntas was sold at Rs.49,700/-; under Ex.A-2 sale deed, the land was sold at Rs.19,000/- and also under Ex.A-3 sale deed dated 23-03-1990 the land in Sy.No.109 to an extent of Ac.0.39 guntas was sold at Rs.17,000/-. According to him, the properties sold under Exs.A-1 to A-3 are nearer to the acquired lands. PW.2 claims to have purchased the land under Ex.A-1 and he spoke about the passing of the consideration and the potentialities. PW.3 is the purchaser of the land under Ex.A-3 and he spoke about the potentialities. PW.4 deposed about the sale of the lands in Sy.No.432 under Ex.A-2. Evidently, Exs.A-1 to A-3 sale deeds are relating to a small extents and they are not immediately abutting the acquired lands. The lower court also found that the claimants have not produced any evidence about the income. The lower court also taken into consideration the lands under Exs.A-1 to A-3 are nearer to the village. However, the learned Subordinate Judge felt that Exs.A-1 to A-3 lands can not be equated with the acquired lands. However, taking into consideration the above circumstances, he fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre. Further more, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Appeals that no deduction was granted after the enhancement and the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge is not sustainable. Evidently, the total extent of land was acquired for a percolation tank and the claimants have lost their agricultural lands, which is only their source of income and there is no contrary evidence to show that the lands under acquisition are barren or waste lands. It cannot be so since the lands come under submergence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances Exs.A-1 to A-3 can be taken as relevant under the circumstances and the value, location in those documents cannot be a basis for arriving at the market value, in fact which was not done by the learned Subordinate Judge and by some guess work and calculation he fixed the market value. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31 -12-2010 TSNR