IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1758 of 1999 AND Cross objections (SR) No.82471 of 1999 A.S.No.1758 of 1999:- Between: The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., represented by its General Manager. … Appellant And Mididoddi Venkaiah (Died) and another. … Respondents Cross objections (SR). No.82471 of 1999:- Mididoddi Madhusudhan. … Cross-objector And The Singareni Colleries Co., Ltd., represented by its General Manager and another. … Respondents. This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1758 of 1999 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).NO.82471 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY) This appeal, by the appellant-Singareni Collieries Company Limited, is directed against the order dated 02.04.1999 passed in O.P.No.48 of 1993 by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, wherein the market value in respect of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.6,000/- per acre, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs.14,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the said enhancement, the claimant filed cross-objections. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. On the requisition of the appellant, an extent of Ac.8-33 guntas in S.No.40 situated at Jallipalli village of Kamanpur mandal was acquired by the 2nd respondent herein. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity, “the Act”) was issued on 23.12.1982 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made. After following the procedure prescribed, during the award enquiry, the 2nd respondent passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.04.1986 fixing the rate at Rs.6,000/- per acre. The 1st respondent/cross-objector/claimant filed a claim statement, seeking enhancement, before the civil Court on reference being made under Section 18 of the Act. During enquiry, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the purchaser under Ex.A2 was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on behalf of the 1st respondent/claimant. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge while accepting the market value under the sale deed Ex.A2, dated 22.03.1982, whereunder Ac.0-10 guntas of land in the same survey number was sold for Rs.5,000/- in favour of P.W.2, fixed the market value at Rs.14,000/- per acre, after giving deduction of 1/3rd from the sale price, in view of the fact that the extent sold was small being only Ac.0-10 guntas. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the reference court had not placed reliance on Ex.A2 as the said document was brought into existence purposely on the eve of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and having knowledge of the fact that a requisition was already made by the appellant to the 2nd respondent for acquisition of the said land. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant/cross- objector, on the other hand, contends that Ex.A2 was executed prior to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be stated to be a fictitious transaction entered into with any oblique motive. He further contends that the learned Senior Civil Judge has erred in deducting 1/3rd from out of the sale price mentioned in Ex.A2, though the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued long subsequent to the transaction under Ex.A2. He would further contend that the learned Senior Civil Judge erred in not awarding any compensation for the trees, which were found to be in existence on the land, even as per the agreement Ex.A1 executed by the appellant itself. It is alleged that a requisition was made by the appellant to the 2nd respondent in the year 1977 and with full knowledge of the said fact the transaction under Ex.A2 was entered into. There is nothing on record to show that any such requisition was made by the appellant to the 2nd respondent in the year 1977 or that this respondent came to know of it and P.W.2 had knowledge of any such requisition. It is also contended that the document has been brought into existence in a fictitious manner five years later with the knowledge of requisition by the appellant. The document Ex.A2 was executed on 22.03.1992 whereunder Ac.0-10 guntas of land was purchased by P.W.2 for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- which comes to Rs.20,000/- per acre. P.W.2 has testified to the truth of the transaction contained therein and his evidence has not been discredited in any manner. There is absolutely nothing to infer from his evidence and also the evidence of P.W.1 that Ex.A2 was brought into existence only on the eve of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act with a view to get higher rate of compensation. It is also significant to note that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made long subsequent i.e., about 9 months after execution of Ex.A2 and the learned Senior Civil Judge has, therefore, rightly taken Ex.A2 into consideration as the said transaction was much prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and was in respect of the land covered by the same survey number and the genuineness of the transaction has duly been established not only by the claimant-P.W.1, but also by the independent witness P.W.2. The learned Senior Civil Judge having regard to the fact that the extent covered under Ex.A2 is only a small extent of Ac.0-10 guntas, has deducted 1/3rd from the sale consideration, following the decision in B.Narasimha Reddy and another v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nalgonda {1996 (1) ALT 356 (DB)} and the same cannot be found fault with. Having regard to the fact that the extent acquired is Ac.8-33 guntas and the extent covered by Ex.A2 is only Ac.0-10 guntas, the deduction of 1/3rd from the sale price as mentioned in Ex.A2 is considered to be just and reasonable. Thus, after deducting 1/3rd from the sale price of Rs.20,000/- per acre, the market value is fixed at Rs.13,333/- per acre and was rounded of to Rs.14,000/- per acre. The said amount is held to be just and fair compensation for the land under acquisition and there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the said fixation of the market value by the learned Senior Civil Judge. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant questioning the said fixation and also the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant seeking further enhancement, are both untenable. Regarding the value of structures or trees, the cross- objections do not make any reference to the claim, in respect of the same. The impugned order shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his award that the land is free from all types of structures, wells and trees and as such, the question of fixation of the values for the said items does not arise. The reference court also gave a finding that the claimant has not filed any iota of evidence to prove the existence of trees and well in the acquired land and the claimant has not made any claim under Ex.A1 and has not produced any original document also. Under those circumstances, the claim, in respect of the trees and other structures, was rightly rejected by the reference court and the same does not call for any interference, especially when there is no reference in the cross-objections regarding any such claim. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, fixing the market value at Rs.14,000/- per acre for the land under acquisition, together with other benefits available under the statute and rejecting the claim on compensation for the trees and structures, does not call for any interference. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objections are both dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04.03.2010 lmv