IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR A.S.No.204 of 2002 Between: The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, H.L.C., Anantapur .. Appellant AND N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy .. Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per. G. Bhavani Prasad, J) This appeal is directed against the award rendered by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, on 29-1-2001 in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1993. For the purpose of excavation of PABR right canal, land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of Ac.1.47.5 Hcs and 0.66.0 Hcs of land in Sy.No.492/2 and 494/2 of Gondireddipalli village under Section 4 (1) notification dated 5-11-1992. The award enquiry was dispensed with in view of urgency and the declaration was duly published. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value at Rs.42,187.06ps and the claimant received his 1/3rd share of compensation so fixed under protest and the matter was accordingly referred to Civil Court. The claimant claimed that the market value of the land is more than Rs.40,000/- per acre and compensation may be enhanced accordingly along with all statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer defended the justification for the award. During enquiry, the reference Court examined PW.1 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 and B.1 to B.5. In the impugned award, the reference Court considered the question of the market value of the acquired land as well as the question of entitlement of the claimant for any enhancement. The reference Court noted that the acquired land is a dry land with fertile red soil and PW.1 claimed to be getting 30 bags of groundnut per acre from the said land. The claimant also relied on Ex.A.1-Sale deed showing the purchase of the land by his uncle at Rs.16,000/- concerning an extent of Ac.10-12 cents in Sy.No.311. Though no person connected with Ex.A.1 was examined, further the reference Court noted that the Land Acquisition Officer referred to Ex.A.1-Sale deed and did not consider it as being an oldest sale deed at the time of acquisition. The evidence of RW.1 on behalf of the State was that the market value of the land was only Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre and the reference Court further noted that the claimant himself stated before the Land Acquisition Officer that the market value was only Rs.25,000/- per acre. The reference Court further referred to Ex.B.4 sketch to identify the location of the land with reference to the other lands referred to in the evidence and considered that Ex.A.1-Sale deed cannot be disbelieved as having been brought into existence as it was 2½ years earlier to Section 4 (1) notification. The reference Court referred to the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Officer that the lands which were not compared were maintained well with better fertility and opined that even if the entire market value was not adopted for that reason as disclosed by the other documents, at least the Land Acquisition Officer should have fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre in view of the value of Sl.No.7 of the sale transactions obtained by him. Taking into consideration the sale statistics relating to Sy.Nos.311 and 393/2 near the acquired land, the reference court fixed the market value at Rs.11,000/- per acre and granted all the statutory benefits on such sum of compensation. The State challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the Sale transaction-Ex.A.1 was rightly discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as the acquired land is inferior and is not comparable and hence, the enhancement is requested to be reversed. Smt. A.B. Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant are heard. The point for consideration is whether the enhancement by the reference Court is not reasonable or just? The reference Court in the impugned award had extensively gone into the question in issue and evidence on record and did not straightaway accept the claims about the dependability of Ex.A.1- Sale deed or the nature and fertility of the land in question. In fact, due to the confusing suggestions made to RW.1 during the enquiry and due to the claim of the claimant himself before the Land Acquisition Officer about the value of the land being Rs.25,000/- per acre, the reference Court refused to straightaway act on the claims by the claimant. The reference Court had in fact relied on, to identify the location of the acquired land vis-à-vis the other survey numbers, regarding the value of which there is material on record, Ex.B.4 sketch of the Land Acquisition Officer himself and the values adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer from the sale statistics referred to in Ex.B.1-award themselves were the basis for the conclusions of the reference Court. When the distinction sought to be maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer about the higher fertility or better maintenance of the other lands in question was without any evidentiary basis, the reference Court cannot be considered to have gone wrong in taking the contents of Ex.B.1 award itself as indicating the justifiability for fixation of market value at Rs.10,000/- or Rs.11,000/- per acre. The reference Court taking into consideration the sale statistics relating to Survey Nos.311 and 393/2 of the award itself cannot, therefore, be considered unreasonable or unjust and the marginal increase in the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by the reference Court cannot, therefore, be considered to be excessive or unreasonable or calling for any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J ________________ K. G. SHANKAR, J Date: 23-12-2010 Ksn