THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.432 OF 2008 DATED DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Nellore Narasinga Rao and Others .… Appellants/Claimants And Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore and another. … Respondents/ Referring Officer THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.432 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) Dissatisfied with the Order and Decree dated 02.06.2008 in L.A.O.P.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, claimants 2 to 5 therein are in appeal before this Court. By the said Order and Decree, the reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.15,000/- per acre to Rs.30,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.3.96¼ cents of land in CAS No.446 of Nellore Bit-I Village, Nellore District, was acquired under notification dated 20.03.1980 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Award No.1/81 dated 18.03.1981 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre. The Anjaneyaswamy Devasthanam, Santhapet, Nellore, the first claimant in the O.P. and the second respondent herein, was shown as the owner of the acquired land. It received the compensation so determined and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. This reference was taken on file as O.P.No.105 of 1981 by the reference Court and was re- numbered as O.P.No.253 of 1985 upon transfer. It was however dismissed for default by order dated 24.01.1986. While so, the appellants herein along with one Nellore Purushothama Rao filed Writ Petition No.15448 of 1988 before this Court claiming that they were the true owners of the subject acquired land and praying for the quashing of the acquisition proceedings initiated behind their back. This Court, by order dated 30.01.1997, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the competent Court under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. Liberty was given to the appellants herein that, in the event of their success in such proceedings, it would be open to them to revive the Section 18 reference in O.P.No.253 of 1985. The matter was therefore referred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 in O.P.No.5 of 1998. By order dated 24.09.2001, the said Court declared that the appellants herein were alone entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the subject acquired land. The amount erroneously paid to the Devasthanam was accordingly withdrawn and remitted to the appellants. Exercising the liberty given to them by this Court, the appellants filed I.A.No.469 of 2002 in O.P.No.253 of 1985 seeking restoration of the Section 18 reference proceedings. By order dated 29.03.2004 passed in the said I.A., the reference Court revived the reference which was thereupon transferred to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, and re-numbered as L.A.O.P.No.65 of 2004. The appellants, in their claim statement before the reference Court, stated that the acquired land was situated adjacent to the Mini Bypass Road, Nellore, and was classified as wet land under the Ayacut of Nellore Tank. They claimed that the market value of the said land would be about Rs.12,00,000/- per acre as it was fit for house sites. They pointed out that the Nellore Municipality had declared the land in CAS Nos.446 and 447 of Nellore Bit-I as a residential area as per its notification dated 21.11.1978 and therefore, the market value of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was grossly inadequate. They sought fixation of the land value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and consequential compensation in accordance therewith. The appellants examined one witness and marked eight documents in evidence. The State examined one witness and marked one exhibit. It is clear from the deposition of the witnesses examined by both sides that neither had personal knowledge of the land acquired or its potentialities. However, the appellants relied upon what they claimed to be comparative sales, marked as Exs.A.4 to A.6. These documents were however discounted by the reference Court on the premise that they could not be taken as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Ex.A.4 sale deed dated 24.10.1979 pertained to an extent of 90 ankanams (600 ankanams = 1 acre) situated in CAS Nos.448 and 439 of Nellore Bit-I. The sale consideration thereunder put the market value of the land at Rs.3,30,000/- per acre. Ex.A.5 sale deed dated 05.11.1979 pertained to an extent of 72 ankanams situated in CAS No.438 of Nellore Bit-I and the sale consideration thereunder reflected the value of the land at Rs.3,30,000/- per acre. Ex.A.6 sale deed dated 09.09.1978 pertained to 121 ankanams in CAS No.448 of Nellore Bit-I and the market value emerging therefrom was in the range of Rs.2,28,099/- per acre. The reference Court took cognizance of the fact that the acquired land was situated close to the built up area of Ramalingapuram in Nellore Town and that it had house site potentiality. However, stating so, it surprisingly placed reliance upon Ex.B.1 Award marked by the State and the sales statistics discussed therein. Those sale documents had not been marked in evidence and no effort was made to establish similarities between the lands sold thereunder and the acquired land. In the absence of the same, the reference Court erred in baldly accepting the values emerging from the sale transactions discussed in Ex.B.1 as an indicator of the true market value of the acquired land. Such sales statistics did not form part of the evidence before the reference Court [THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA THERMAL STATION v. NUTALAPATI VENKATA RAO[1]]. Relevant to note, the claim of the appellants that the land in CAS Nos.446 and 447 of Nellore Bit-I has been declared as a residential area in the year 1978 was not denied by the State. The reference Court, taking note of this aspect, rightly held that the acquired land had to be considered as a residential area by the date of the acquisition. However, while determining the market value thereof, the reference Court surprisingly placed reliance on the claim statement of the Devasthanam, the first claimant in the O.P., which no longer had a role to play in the matter, in view of the finding that the appellants alone were entitled to claim the compensation for the acquired land. Further, as the parties to the sale transactions under Exs.A.4 to A.6 were not examined, the reference Court was of the opinion that the same could not be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. The appellants marked Ex.A.7 field map to show the location of the lands in CAS Nos.446, 447 and 439 of Nellore Bit-I in support of their contention that these sale transactions were in relation to comparable lands. The reference Court did not go into this aspect at all. Merely because the extents involved in the said sale transactions were not relatable to that of the acquired extent, the reference Court was not justified in eschewing them from consideration altogether. Further, it is no longer necessary for the parties to registered sale documents to be examined for the purpose of proving the contents thereof in the context of Section 18 reference proceedings. The reference Court therefore ought to have considered these documents in the proper perspective and worked out the modalities, keeping in mind the disparity in the extents involved. The error committed by the reference Court in this regard was compounded by its reliance upon the value of Rs.60,000/- per acre claimed by the Devasthanam in the first instance. This claim of the Devasthanam could not be held to be an admission against the appellants as was done by the reference Court. The fixation of market value by the reference Court at Rs.30,000/- per acre is therefore unsustainable in law. As the reference Court, being the Court of the first instance, failed to examine and evaluate the evidence placed before it in the proper perspective, we have no alternative but to set aside the Order and Decree under appeal and remit the matter to the reference Court for consideration afresh. The reference Court shall allow the parties to adduce further evidence, oral and documentary, and decide the matter in accordance with law within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR [1] AIR 1991 AP 31 (FB)