THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 2195 of 2003 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant-claimant No.10 in L.A.O.P. No.28 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, have filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2003, contending that the compensation fixed is very meagre and needs enhancement. The land of the appellant-claimant No.10 in an extent of Ac. 0.09 cents in R.S. No. 346/1B and Ac. 45 cents in R.S. No.348/1B, total admeasuring Ac.0.54 cents, situated within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality, West Godavari, was acquired by the Government, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 11.04.1986, for the purpose of formation of by-pass road in Bhimavaram Municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer, having conducted enquiry by following the procedure contemplated under the Act, passed award dated 22.06.1989, determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The appellant-claimant No.10 received the compensation under protest, and sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Court below after considering the evidence placed by both the parties, by the judgment and decree under appeal, confirmed the award without granting any enhancement. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant No.10 submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Court below instead of taking into consideration Exs. A2 and A4, for the purpose of determining the market value of the land, have committed a grave error in determining the compensation of the acquired land at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, basing on Ex.B1-sale deed dated 28.04.1983 which pertains to an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents of land. In support of his argument that when the land is acquired for formation of road/construction of railway line, no developmental charges can be deducted, placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer[1] and Radha Mudaliyar v. Tahsildar[2]. Hence, he prayed that the compensation in respect of the acquired be enhanced basing on Exs. A2 to A4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Government supported the judgment and decree under appeal and prayed that no further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land is warranted. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant No.10 and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondent- Government and perused the judgment and decree under appeal. The land of the appellant-claimant, admittedly, is acquired for formation of by-pass road in Bhimavaram Municipality. The land in and around the acquired land, is fully developed. There are houses, school and cinema hall, market yard and railway junction. This apart, the land is also wet and fertile, and useful for raising coconut trees. The appellant to show that the market value of the acquired land is above Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, produced Exs. A3 to A4, namely sale deeds dated 20.07.1984 and 20.02.1986. The said sale deeds relate to pre-acquisition notification, and relate to lands situated just adjacent to the acquired land. Under Ex. A3, an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land was sold at Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.4,000/- per cent (Rs.4,00,000/- per acre), while under Ex. A4, an extent of Ac. 0.04 cents of land was sold at Rs. 19,500/- i.e. Rs.4,875/- per cent (Rs.4,87,5000/-). Even though the appellant-claimant No.10 produced those documents to show that the market value of the acquired land is about Rs.4,00,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition, the fact remains, the Court below did not consider the them, and merely basing on Ex. B1, whereunder an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of land was sold at Rs. 1,250/- per cent i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, as relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, for awarding compensation, passed the judgment and decree under appeal, confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, awarding compensation at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. While awarding compensation, there can be no doubt that highest sale transaction must be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting compensation, but the Court must consider whether the sale transaction is within a reasonable time of date of acquisition notification, whether it is a bona fide transaction, whether it is sale of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the one acquired and whether it possesses similar advantage. In the case on hand, as noticed above, Exs. A3 and A4, based on which, appellant-claimant No.10 has claimed compensation as mentioned therein, are pre- acquisition notification sale transactions, and they relate to lands adjacent to the acquired land. Of the two sale transactions, the transaction under Ex. A4, is nearer to the date of acquisition of the land in question, and as the said land relates to the land adjacent to the acquired land, we are of the considered opinion that the value as mentioned in Ex. A4-sale transaction can be taken into consideration, for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, we fix the market value of the land at Rs.4,87,500 per acre, basing on Ex. A4. However, as it is brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, as evident from the evidence of R.W.1 that in and around the acquired land, though there is development, but the acquired land is located in a low-lying area, and considering this, we are of the considered opinion that 20% of the market value fixed should be deducted, and thus deducted, the compensation for the acquired land would work out to Rs.3,90,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,20,000/- per acre. The appellant-claimant No.10 is entitled to all other statutory benefits. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 19th July, 2011 KSR [1] (2009) 11 SCC 75 [2] (2010) 13 SCC 384