THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.2913 of 2001 & ASMP No.2756 of 2008 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) seeking further enhancement is directed against the order and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dated 31-08-2001 passed in O.P.No.46 of 1987. An extent of 6691 square feet (743 4/9 square yards) of vacant land belongs to the 1st respondent/claimant was acquired for widening of the Eluru Road near Challapalli bungalow and possession of the same was taken on 30-08-1976 followed by publication of substance of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the Gazette on 01-11-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) after complying due formalities, obtaining sales statistics from the Sub-Registrar in respect of surrounding lands during the preceding three years, passed his award on 20-11-1982 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.75/- per square yard as against the claim of Rs.3,000/-. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant after receipt of amount under protest, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court for due fixation of the market value of the acquired land. On reference being made by the lower court and on receipt of notice the claimant appeared and filed her claim statement claiming the compensation at Rs.3,000/- per square yard. During the pendency of the reference the claimant died and her legal representatives were brought on record as claimant Nos.2 and 3 by order dated 09-09-1999 in I.A.No.820 of 1998. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land the 3rd claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr.Bhopal Prasad was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A5—registration extracts of basic value registers of the area for the years 1975 to 1979, Ex.A6—sale deed dated 10-04-2000 and Ex.A7—certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada were marked. On behalf of the referring officer one Mr.V.Radha Krishna was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1— award was got marked. The lower court after considering the oral and documentary evidence held since Exs.A1 to A5—basic value registers, which are fixed only for collection of stamp duty on the sale deeds presented for registration, cannot be taken as basis for fixation of market value and since Ex.A6—sale deed was of the year 2000 i.e. 21 years after issuance of notification, the same cannot be taken as comparable sale for fixation of the market value. The lower court after doing some guess work on the sale deeds referred by the LAO in his award fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.156/- per square yard with 12% additional market value and 30% solatium and interest at 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the payment is made but the lower court denied the interest on the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed. The appeal is pending since from 2001 and it was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants from time to time. While so, ASMP No.2756 of 2008 is filed on 22-12-2008 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive the following four documents as additional evidence: 1. vide document No. 2628/78 dated 08-06-1978; 2. vide document No.449/78 dated 24-06-1978; 3. vide document No.5566/78 dated 06-12-1978 and 4. vide document No.4318/79 dated 20-06-1979. Sri K.B.R.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that highest value mentioned in the sale deeds referred in the award by the LAO has to be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value as held by the Supreme Court in RANEE OF VUYYUR v. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS[1]. Since the LAO failed to lead any evidence showing strong circumstances justifying a different course, the earlier document referred at Sl.No.2 in the award, wherein 122 square yards was sold at Rs.491.80ps. per square yard has to be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. He further contended that oral evidence adduced by P.W.2 offering to purchase the land in question at Rs.3,250/- per square yard ought to have been considered by the lower court for fixing the market value in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the LAO. In support of the said submission reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAGHUBANS NARAIN v. GOVT. OF U.P.[2]. The learned counsel further contended that since P.W.2 is a respectable person in the village, the lower court is not justified in disbelieving his evidence. The lower court erred in denying interest on solatium and additional market value and also denying interest from the date of taking possession i.e. 30-08-1976. He also contended that sale deeds, which are now sought to be marked as additional evidence, also show that the market value is ranging from Rs.104/- to 450/- per square yard. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to fixation of the market value at Rs.500/- or Rs.600/- per square yard after giving due escalation. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals strenuously opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. None connected with the sale deeds were examined and the sale deeds now sought to be marked were not referred by the LAO in his award. Once a certificate covered by Ex.A7 dated 02-11-2000 was filed stating that the records prepared upto the end of 1988 were burnt in the agitation, it is for the plaintiffs to explain wherefrom the said certified copies of sale deeds were obtained and proximity of the lands covered by above sale deeds with the acquired land. When we express our desire to remit the matter to the lower court to lead evidence on the sale deeds, which are now sought to be marked as additional evidence, the learned Government Pleader contended that since there is a considerable delay of more than 30 years, if the matter is remitted to the lower court the Government is unnecessarily burdened with higher rate of interest. Therefore, he fairly conceded that last two document covered by sale deeds dated 06-12- 1978 and 20-06-1979, which are eleven and five months prior to acquisition respectively, can be taken into consideration for fixation of market value, and in view of Section 51-A of the Act it is not necessary to examine the vendor and vendee of such sale deeds. We see sufficient force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader for appeals. In view of the rival submissions, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “What is the true market value of the land to which the claimants are entitled to”. Since the learned Government Pleader has not opposed to receive the documents 3 and 4 covered by sale deeds dated 06-12-1978 and 20-06-1979 as additional evidence, which are houses pertain to same ward, block and survey numbers. Therefore, the said documents are now marked as Exs.A8 and A9. The other two documents covered by sale deeds dated 08-06-1978 and 24-06-1978 are in different wards, blocks and survey numbers; therefore, the same cannot be received as additional evidence. In view of the same, ASMP No.2756 of 2008 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. It is well settled that award cannot be treated as evidence. Since it is only an offer made by the LAO basing upon certain observations, unless the sale deeds which were referred by the LAO in his award are marked and proved either by the claimants or by the LAO, the claimants cannot claim highest compensation as reflected in the sale deeds referred in the award. In the case of Ranee of Vuyyur (1 supra) 11 grounds of land was sold at Rs.1,961/- per ground covered by Ex.R-19. The land covered by Ex.R27 was also sold before the notification but after the land comprised in Ex.R19 was sold. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that highest value shown in the sale deed as relied on behalf of the Government should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. The facts in the above case are misplaced to the facts of the present case, as the claimants or LAO has not marked the documents referred to in the award at Sl.No.1 of 1977 vide document No.2240 dated 04-08-1977 where 122 square yards of land was sold at Rs.60,000/-. The two documents which we now marked as Exs.A8 and A9 were also referred by the LAO at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 of 1978, where 252 square yards with tiled house was sold vide document No.2686 at Rs.65,000/-; whereas under Ex.A8 document 200 square yards was sold for Rs.90,000/- vide document No.5566 at Rs.450/- per square yard in Sy.Nos.133 and 131 respectively. We will consider the said documents during the course of our assessing the market value. It is nextly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that oral evidence offered by P.W.2 should be accepted to fix the market value. Claimant No.3, who was examined as P.W.1, in his chief affidavit stated that one Vemuri Venkata Ratnam, rice mill owner made an offer to purchase the acquired land at Rs.3,500/- per square yard during the time of acquisition, but the said Venkata Ratnam has not been examined. P.W.1 also deposed that apart from Venkata Ratnam, P.W.2 also offered to purchase the said property. P.W.2 deposed that he bargained with the father of P.W.1 (claimant No.3) in the year 1974 and offered to pay Rs.3,250/- per square yard; initially the father of the claimants 2 and 3 agreed to sell the land at the price settled earlier but later resiled as higher offer was made by some other. The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.2, where he (P.W.1) categorically stated during the time of acquisition an offer was made by Venkata Ratnam. In view of the same, the lower court has not taken into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.1. In RAGHUBANS NARAIN’s case (2 supra) the District Court accepted the oral evidence of witness who had made offer to purchase the property, which was discarded by the High Court. The same is also misplaced to the facts of the present case. We accordingly reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that oral evidence offered by P.W.2 offering to purchase the land at Rs.3,250/- can also be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. Then comes to Exs.A8 and A9. In view of amendment made to Land Acquisition Act by Act 68/1984, the contents of the above sale deeds can be relied upon for fixation of the market value. Ex.A8 is the sale deed executed by Chalasani Seetharavamma w/o Chalasani Seshagiri on 06-12-1978, where 200 square yards of land along with tiled house situated at Ward No.22, T.S.No.131, Governorpet beside the Eluru Road, Vijayawada was sold for a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The said tiled house was constructed in the year 1972. By the date of sale the house was only six years old and the document also shows that loan was obtained from LIC and the same was discharged out of sale consideration. The same will not reflect the true market value. Therefore, there remains only one document marked as Ex.A9 dated 20-06-1979, where an extent of 242 square yards was sold in the same ward number and block number where the acquired land was situated for a sum of Rs.66,995/- which works out to Rs.276/- per square yard. The said sale deed dated 20-06-1979 is proximity to the date of notification, which was published on 01-11-1979 i.e. 4 months 10 days prior to the notification. Therefore, the same can be taken as comparable sale for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. We accordingly fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.276/- per square yard. Since the award proceedings are pending as on 30-04-1982, the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and they are also entitled to additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of notification i.e. 01-11-1979 till the date of award i.e. 20-11-1982 and interest on the enhanced compensation at 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of notification and thereafter at 15% till the payment is made. Having regard to the fact that the lower court has denied interest on additional market value and solatium, the claimants are also entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium from the date of judgment in SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA[3] i.e. 19-09- 2001 as clarified by the Supreme court in GURPREET SINGH v UNION OF INDIA[4]. It is made clear that as the compensation awarded by the lower court has already been deposited, the same will not carry any interest from the date of such deposit. While executing the decree the lower court has to appropriate the amounts so deposited under the various heads as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh’s case (4 supra). The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J. 24-08-2009 Murthy [1] 1969 (1) An.W.R.45 (SC) [2] AIR 1967 SC 465 [3] AIR 2001 SC 3516 = (2001) 7 SCC 211 [4] (2006) 8 SCC 457