HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.Nos.163 and 165 of 1999 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These two appeals by the claimants are directed agianst the common award of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dated 02.02.1998 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.300 and 303 of 1988, wherein the reference was partly answered in favour of the claimants by enhancing the market value by Rs.2,000/- per acre over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. An extent of Ac.7.17 cents of land belonging to the villagers in L.A.O.P.Nos.298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304 307 and 308 of 1988 was acquired for constructing Integrated Check Post near Karuru Village. Notification under Section 4(1) was published in the gazette on 27.05.1987 and the lands were taken advance possession on 09.08.1996. The Land Acquistion Officer, by award No.1/87/88, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre and paid compensation on 04.07.1988 apart from 30% solatium and 9% interest for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, at 15% p.a. and had not awarded the additional market value on the ground that advance possession was taken. The claimants, who received the compensation under protest, sought a reference claiming that the land value is Rs.310/- per ankanam. On reference being made to the Civil Court, the claimants filed their respective pleadings claiming higher compensation. In order to prove the market value of the acquired land on behlaf of the claimants, CWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.X.1, sale deed dated 09.12.1985 and Ex.A.1, registered sale deed dated 23.06.1986. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.B.1, copy of the registered sale deed No.203/84, dated 23.05.2004 and Ex.B.2, copy of the registered sale deed No.524, dated 23.06.1986. The claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.308 and 304 of 1988 were examined as CWs.1 and 3 respectively. The purchaser of Ac.0.05 cents of land under Ex.X.1 was examined as CW.2. Ex.A.1 was executd by the elder brother of CW.3 and as CW.3 could not identify his elder brother's signature, CW.4, the attestor of Ex.A.1 was examined. The lower Court discarded both the sale deeds and enhanced the market value to Rs.2,000/- over and above the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants in O.P.Nos.300 and 303 of 1988 filed the present appeals and the other claimants did not file any appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, vide letter dated 10.07.2009, addressed to the learned Government Pleader for Appeals also confirmed non-filing of appeals by the other claimants. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and they have taken us through the evidence adduced by the claimants. The only point that arises for consideration now is whether the compensation fixed by the lower Court needs to be further enhanced or not? The claimants, who are claiming compensation at Rs.310/- per ankanam, worked out the compensation at Rs.1,86,000/-. In order to prove the market value, the claimants have not entered the witness box except the claimants in O.P.Nos.304 and 308 of 1988, as referred above. The purchaser under Ex.A.1, sale deed, was examined as CW.2 and he deposed that he purchased Ac.0.05 cents of land on 09.12.1985 under Ex.X.1 for a sum of Rs.12,410/-, which is opposite to the acquired land, east of the road. Under Ex.X.1, 241 square yards were sold in Sy.No.250/1 showing the market value at Rs.10/- per sq. yard. The document also clearly shows that a house was in existence with AC sheets and the value of the house was shown at Rs.10,000/-. CW.2 deposed that the age of the building is 32 years, that he had purchased Ac.0.05 cents of land for constructing a house, that he had not stated about the existence of the house and could not say the names of scibe and attestors of Ex.A.1. CW.2 also admitted that he is working as driver under the vendors of Ex.A.1. The lower Court rightly discarded Ex.A.1, sale deed dated 09.12.1985, as the purchase of the sale deed is doubtful. CW.4, who attested Ex.A.1, stated that CW.2 has got the house for 15 years, which is contrary to the evidence of CW.2 and out of Rs.12,410/- paid as consideration, Rs.10,000/- was the value of the house purchased under Ex.X.1. Since the above purchase is doubtful, the lower Court rightly discarded the evidence of CW.2. Coming to the evidence of CW.3 to prove the document under Ex.A.1, it is stated by him that his elder brother executed the document and he was a minor at that time and could not identify the signature of his elder brother on the document. CW.4, who is the attestor of Ex.A.1, stated that Ac.0.82 cents of land in Sy.No.252/15 was sold for a sum of Rs.39,390/- on 23.06.1986, wherein it was mentioned in the document that it was a dry land. The recitals in the document go to show that the land was sold at Rs.10/- per square yard and with regard to Ac.0.80 cents of land, it is doubtful whether it was purchased at Rs.10/- per square yard. Therefore, the lower Court rightly discarded the said transaction. When CW.4 stated that the land was taken and no houses were constructed therein, production of Ex.A.1 also creates a doubt. CW.3 stated that he requested the purchaser of the document, Rekam Subrahmanyam Reddy, to produce the same in the Court. CW.4, the attestor of the document, stated that he borrowed Ex.A.1, registered sale deed, from Rekam Subrahmanyam for production in the Court. What interest the attestor of the document will have for borrowing the document and producing the same before the Court is not explained properly by the claimants. RWs.2 and 3, who purchased the land under Exs.B.1 and B.2, were examined on behalf of the Referring Officer. They clearly deposed that they purchased the land for Rs.5,100/- under document No.203/84 and Rs.4,000/- per acre under document No.524. According to them, the lands, covered by Exs.B.1 and B.2, are agricultural lands situated at a distance of 2 to 2½ furlongs to the east of the road and, therefore, the value of the land at a distance of 2 to 2½ furlongs is Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre. Taking into consideration the fact that the lands are abutting the main road, with guess work, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.12,000/- per acre and awarded additional market value at 12% from the date of taking possession i.e. from 09.08.1986 till the date of award i.e. 15.12.1987 and interest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possession i.e. 09.08.1986 and thereafter, at 15% till the date of payment. It is well settled that when advance possession is taken, the claimants are not entitled to additional market value from the date of taking possession and they are entitled to interest at 9% from the date of notification for a period of one year and thereafter, 15% till the date of payment. It is clear from Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act that the starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of Section 4 notification (See Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer[1]). Since the entire amount had already been paid pursuant to the award passed by the lower Court, we do not see any merits in the appeal for enhancing the compensation basing upon Exs.X.1 and A.1, sale deeds. We do not find any error of principles of law committed by the Principal Court in discarding the above sale deeds and as compensation determined by the reference Court has been paid to the claimants, we confirm the award passed by the reference Court. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:04.08.2009 usd [1] 2002(1) SCC 142