THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2798 OF 2000 24-11-2010 BETWEEN; B.Ramarao ...Appellant vs. Special Tahsildar, Unit-IV, Jangareddigudem and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2798 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per NRLN,J) The second claimant in O.P.No.100 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru is the appellant herein aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in O.P.Nos.100 of 1988, 52 of 1989 and 53 of 1989. The land of the appellant situated at Vegavaram village to an extent of Ac.11.21 guntas along with other extents of land were acquired for Yerrakalva Reservoir Scheme under Vengalaraya Sagar Project in Jangareddigudem Project. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an award inquiry and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.6,000/-per acre per wet land and at Rs.5,500/- per acre per dry land. The claimants were not satisfied with the market value and they filed an objection and the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The appellant herein contended before the Court that the land is fertile fetching an income of Rs.15,000/- per acre and wet crops are raised. The first claimant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre and Rs.20,000/- towards bore well which was said to be existing. The second claimant also claimed that the land though described as a dry land, it is a wet land since wet cultivation is being undertaken and there is sufficient income and pleaded for fixation of the market value at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. All O.Ps were clubbed together and on behalf of the appellant, he was examined as PW. 2 and the claimants in other O.Ps were also examined. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, Land Acquisition Officer was examined. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge fixed the market value of the wet land at Rs.15,000/- and for the dry land at Rs.12,000/- with statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the market value claimed by the appellants is true and real? 2. Whether the market value fixed by the lower court is legal and correct? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled for any further benefit? 4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? 5. To what relief? POINTS:- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lands are potential with crop yielding and the lower court has not properly considered the fertility and the relevancy of the Ex.A-1 while determining the compensation. As can be seen from Ex.A-1 and according to the case of the petitioner, for similar purposes, adjoined lands were acquired and the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.13,000/- granted by the lower court. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge found that no document of sale is filed by the date of notification. The evidence of PW.1 is that she never visited the lands and she does not know the comparability of the lands under acquisition and under Ex.A-1. According to the evidence of PW.1, her sons look after the affairs and therefore the lower court rightly rejected the evidence. PW.2 is the second claimant also relied upon the judgments under Exs.A-6 and A- 7 where under the civil court has fixed the compensation at Rs.22,000/- per acre for the lands acquired for the same purpose. The lower court found that the appellant was satisfied with filing of the copy of the judgment and decree of the High Court under Ex.A-3 and the appellant has not filed the judgment to take into consideration the relevancy of the reasons for application in this case. Therefore, there is absolutely no material to show that the lands covered under the previous decrees and the present case are similar and potential. The lower court also rejected Ex.A-4 since it is not a public document showing the location of the lands. The evidence of appellant does not reflect under Exs.A-6 and A-7. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is quite clear that except relying upon the decrees of the court, in earlier awards, no sale transactions are filed about the market value as on the date of notification. There is also no material to hold the comparability of the lands under this acquisition and the previous decreed awards as being similar. The evidence on record is not sufficient to come to a different conclusion and the learned Senior Civil Judge has taken realistic view and passed the impugned award. There are no merits to interfere in this appeal and appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the points are answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 24th NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR