THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.197 OF 2002 & Cross Objections (SR) No.33408 of 2003 Dated. 25-02-2011 Between: K.Satyanarayana Murthy …Appellant/Claimant Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acqusition, Visakhapatnam and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.197 OF 2002 & Cross Objections (SR) No.33408 of 2003 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The Appeal is filed by the claimant No.4 in O.P.No.104 of 1999 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka being not satisfied with the enhancement of the compensation. The land in several survey numbers at Vadlapudi village was acquired for widening of the National Highway and the notification was given and published on 28-06-1990 and the Land Acquisition Officer has conducted an award enquiry and fixed the market value at Rs.78/- per square yard. The claimants were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and at their instance, the reference was made. The claimants maintained that the market value is higher and the location of the land is superior. The claimant No.4 who is the appellant herein contended that the land is situated in an industrial and commercial area and the highway is passing through his land. The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant is 100 yards away from the village. There are several facilities and the land is in a developed area. The adjoining lands were sold at Rs.2,000/- per square yard and due to severance of their property they suffered damages. The other claimants also made similar claim for enhancement. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. After considering the material on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge has fixed the market value at Rs.90/- per square yard. Questioning the same, the claimant No.4 has filed the present appeal. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is low and as to whether the claimant will be entitled to further enhancement? 2. To what relief? POINTS: Before the lower court, the original claimant No.4 was examined as PW.1 and he is represented by General Power of Attorney holder who also filed the appeal before this court. The learned Senior Civil Judge considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 3; with reference to the evidence of RW.1 and Ex.B-1 award and relied upon three sale deeds under Exs.A-5 to A-7 purchased by PW.2, which are prior to the notification. The lower court also did not discard the sale deeds and found that the genuineness of them was established by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The lower court also found that the evidence of RW.1 that the land covered by Ex.B-3 is not adjacent to the highway cannot be accepted. The lower court found that reliance on Ex.B-3 by the Land Acquisition Officer is in correct. Ultimately, it was found that the land under Ex.B-3 is interior to the National Highway and the lands under acquisition are costlier. In para.17 the learned Senior Civil Judge found that prices mentioned in Exs.A-5 to A-7 cannot be said to be excessive and Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into consideration the sale deeds. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the sale transactions under Exs.A-5 to A-7 which are proved by the evidence of PW.2 is accepted, the market value varies from Rs.186/- to 220/- as per Exs.A-5 to A-7. Evidently, except the sale transactions under Exs.A-5 to A- 7 there are no other sale transactions filed by the claimants to show that in the vicinity or surrounding the acquired lands. There are several transactions with the same market value. It is common knowledge that whenever there is a necessity for a particular individual and when properties abuts their own land even if a price is more the purchase will be effected. Added to that, the extent of the property purchased has also be taken into consideration. In this case, the claim of the appellant is to an extent of 3660 square yards; whereas the extent of property under Exs.A-5 to A-7 when purchased individually relates to lesser extents. Further more, merely because in the village a particular land was paid at a higher rate enhancement, it does not mean that all the lands have got the same market value. So also merely because the land abuts the National Highway or a road all the lands will have no similar advantages or potentialities. Evidently the land sold under Exs.A-5 to A-7 does not abut the land acquired in this case. The lands under Exs.A-5 to A-7 are located in Sy.No.128/2; whereas the land belonging to the appellant to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents is located in Sy.No.90/9-B, 10-B, and 15-B and 90/16. Therefore, by any comprehension it cannot be expected that the land sold under Exs.A-5 to A-7 are clear or abutting the land of the petitioner/appellant. The total land under Exs.A-5 to A-7 is only Ac.0.05 cents whereas the land of the petitioners under acquisition is Ac.0.75 cents which makes all the differences for arriving at the determination of the market value. As can be seen from the deposition of PW.2 referred to at page No.16 of the judgment, it was stated that the lands purchased under the originals of Exs.A-5 to A-7 sale deeds are abutting the National Highway; whereas the land of PW.1 is further north of National Highway. Therefore, there cannot be any similarities for the lands under Exs.A-5 to A-7 and on that basis the claimants cannot contend that they are entitled for the same value. As already stated except the above sale transactions there are no documents to show that the market value continued to be same in the vicinity prior to the notification or subsequent to the notification. The lower court has evidently relied upon Exs.A-5 to A-7 only to come to a conclusion about the rising prices in the vicinity and to hold that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is low and not proper. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances the contention of the appellant that the market value as mentioned under Exs.A-5 to A-7 should have given to them cannot be accepted. It is needless to say that though all the lands are in the same vicinity the advantages of the land being close to the village are more. In this case there is no evidence to show that the advantage for the land under Exs.A-5 to A-7 is similar to the lands under acquisition. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the claimant is not entitled for the same price of the land sold under Exs.A-5 to A-7 which are only single instance of a single person purchasing the property for the advantage. The lower court has taken into consideration the potentiality and the fact that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is less and particularly the extent of the land concerning the appellant is concerned the enhancement @ Rs. 12/- per square yard cannot be said to be unreasonable and lacked perception of the real value by the lower court. It is needless to say that a large extent of land is involved, the same price cannot be considered for small extents. Therefore, for the above reasons, we hold that the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable so far as it relates to the lands. The appellant claimed that the value of the building was worth Rs.1,20,000/- and compound wall was costing about Rs.24,000/- but the Land Acquisition Officer has granted only Rs.42,000/- for the structures and the claimants are entitled for the enhancement. As can be seen from the award and the reasons given by the lower court the estimates for the structures prepared by the Engineering Department of the R & B and the appellant has not produced any document or evidence to show the actual expenditure incurred by him for construction or value of the said constructions. In the absence of material evidence to support the claim of the appellant, the value which was based on evidence and the determination by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be said to be low and the lower court has rightly rejected the claim. The appellant has also made the claim before the lower court that due to severance of the land the approach to the existing property was lost and the utility is lost and there was a rise of the level of the road and therefore is entitled for special compensation @ Rs.500/- per square yard. In the grounds of appeal the claim for the severance was not valued and the claim only with regard to market value of the acquired land and the structures. Therefore the claim of the appellant for compensation for severance and the loss of enjoyment cannot be considered. However, the order of the lower court clearly goes to show that there is no loss of enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and two tenants earlier occupied the premises and there is no material to show that they have vacated the property. However, there is no proof that it has become inaccessible and I find the evidence of PW.1 on record show that there is sufficient space from the fly over and to the existing land of the appellant. The evidence of PW.1 before the lower court does not show any deprivation of the enjoyment of the existing property. Therefore the award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge cannot be said to be based on no evidence and there is no material to accept the claim of the appellant for enhancement and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is needless to say that the compensation includes the value of the property, the solatium and the additional market value and the petitioners will be entitled to all the statutory benefits which were granted by the lower court. Accordingly the points are answered. In view of the enhancement of the compensation by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka is found to be reasonable and on appreciation of the material, the cross objections filed by the State questioning the enhancement of the compensation has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit as well as the Cross Objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR