THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.352 OF 1999 Dated. 31 -12-2010 Between: Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Deverkonda …Appellant Vs. Y.Lachaiah and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.352 of 1999 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.6 of 1988 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda enhancing the compensation to Rs.9,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. An extent of Ac.50.19 guntas of land belonging to the claimants was acquired for the purpose of excavation of S.L.B. Canal in the reach from K.M.68.260 to 69.873 and a draft notification was given and published on 05-02-1987. An award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value @ Rs.5,100/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and claiming that the land is potential and accordingly reference was made to the civil court. The claimants pleaded that the land is potential and they were getting yielding crops and the market value shall be fixed @ Rs.50,000/- and further contended that the value given by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees is not proper. On behalf of the claimants PWS.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1. After considering the material on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge fixed the market value @ Rs.9,000/- per acre and granted the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS:- Evidently, when a reference is made to the civil court the claimants are in the position of the plaintiffs in a civil suit and burden is on them to prove the real market value based on potentialities or comparative sales. In this case, the claimant No.7 was examined as PW.1 and according to him the village Narasinghabatla is situated at a distance of 14 to 15 kilometres from Nalgonda and there are good communication facilities and the acquired lands are fertile and cash crops, such as ground nut, sun flower, cotton and castor were being acquired. PW.2 was examined to prove that he along with his brother sold agricultural land to one M.Muthaiah in the year 1986 at Rs.40,000/- per acre though the sale deed shows only Rs.24,000/-. The learned Senior Civil Judge did not accept the sale transaction since it is for a lesser extent. Having found so the learned Senior Civil Judge in paragraphs 13 and 14, observed as under:- Para.13: Before considering the claim of the claimant, it is useful to refer to a judgment reported in AIR 1988 S.C page 1652, where in it was held that in a reference under Section 17 of the L.A.Act, the court has to treat that the reference as an original proceeding, and the claimant is in a position of the plaintiff, who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate, on the basis of material produced in the court. Of course, the material placed and proved by the other side, can also be taken into account for his purpose. The court has to determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. Para.14: Having regard the day to day hiking in prices of land values and further considering the location and potentiality of the acquired land, I am of the view that the market value fixed by the L.A.O at Rs.5,100/- per acre is not sufficient and reasonable and this court be reasonably fixed at Rs.9,000/- per acre for the agricultural land.” Evidently, having stated the legal position referring to the Supreme Court’s Judgment, sofar as the application is concerned, the learned Senior Civil Judge has given go-bye. The learned Senior Civil Judge has taken into consideration the day to day hiking in the prices of the land value aad also the potentiality and locality. Evidently, there are no comparable sales placed before the court to show that there was a hike in the market value. The land was acquired in a village and in the larger extent of Ac.50.00 guntas. The potentialities of urban hood or semi-urban living does not arise, though when a tall claim was made that good crops were realised, no adangal extract was filed and no village officer was examined and no neighbours were also examined. So also, to prove the potentialities of the village, no record was summoned and no officers were examined. Merely because the village is nearer to head-quarters, it does not mean that its’ value is high. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that even during the years of acquisition in 1986, even the head-quarter of Nalgonda is not very well developed. Therefore, the general reasoning of location and potentialities adopted by the learned Senior Civil Judge de hors the factual element and approach of the lower court. If Ex.A-1 is excluded under consideration, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary to hold that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not real. The court cannot enter into guess work of its own without some material to support the conclusion. Therefore, it has to be held that the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is based on no evidence and requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the order of the lower court insofar as it relates to enhancement of the compensation from Rs.5,100/- to Rs.9,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. It is needless to say that if the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the benefits under amended Act are not given, as per the decision reported in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]) the claimants will be entitled to and they can approach to the court below. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31 -12-2010 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).