THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD LAAS.No.494 of 2008 And CROSS-OBJECTION (SR) 13303 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1994 is at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer, inter alia, aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree and Award in O.P.No.37 of 2007, dated 4-8-2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District in proceedings arising out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1994. The respondents-claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking for further enhancement. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the lands belonging to the respondents-claimants were acquired by issuance of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 3-5-2006 for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of Jurala Project. Accordingly, the enquiry was held by the Land Acquisition Officer who passed an Award No.7 of 2007, dated 19-2- 2007 fixing the market rate at Rs.35,000/- per acre. The claimants dissatisfied with the said market rate as determined sought for a reference to the Civil Court. The Court below, a reference Court, took up the matter as OP.No.37 of 2007. After appearance and filing respective claims, the enquiry was taken wherein the claimants have examined PWs.1 to 4 and market Exs.A.1 to A.14. On behalf of the appellants Land Acquisition Officer was examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.B.1, which is nothing but the award in question, dated 19-2-2007. Except the award no other material or any sale transaction has been produced by the appellants herein as evidence in the said enquiry. On a consideration of the aforesaid evidence and material on record, the Court below enhanced the market rate and fixed the same at Rs.97/- per sq meter and awarded all other additional benefits as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Having heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri T.Janaki Rami Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, the only point which arises for consideration after taking into account various submissions across the Bar is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the Court below was right in fixing the proper, just and reasonable market value in respect of the acquired lands. There is no dispute to the fact that the acquisition was made as per the notification dated 3-5-2003, it is this day, which will have relevance for the purpose of determining the market value in respect of the acquired lands. No doubt, during the award enquiry, the award of which was filed by the appellants themselves and marked as Ex.B.1, there has been reference to various other transactions and particulars but however there is total lull and silence on the part of the appellants herein in producing any such material which has been referred to or relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. There is no explanation coming forth on behalf of the appellant as to why such material, which could have been easily produced by them, is withheld or not produced. In contrast, the claimant apart from examining himself as PW.1 who is one among the claimants, other material has been produced which pertains to the acquisitions and fixation of market rate in a reference by the Court and which according to them would form proper basis for proper assessment in respect of the market value for the acquired lands in this case. Apart from that PW.1 gives a total narration about the acquired properties and its nature and job of location including as to neighbouring villages. Whereas PW.2 who is one of the claimants in a connected acquisition and consequent reference in OP.726 of 1994 and batch where the market value was fixed at Rs.60/- and reduction was given at ¼ leading to fixation at Rs.45/- per sq meter, which however later on modified to Rs.40/- by taking deduction at 1/3rd instead of 1/4th . The said judgment is marked as Exs.A.2 and the confirmation thereof ultimately by the Supreme Court under Ex.A.3. Similarly, PW.3 is another claimant in another acquisition proceedings and the consequent reference thereon in O.P.No.32 of 2002 and batch in respect of the same village where the market rate was determined at Rs.60/- per sq meter and the same was confirmed by the High Court and also by the Supreme Court by dismissing the appeals as could be evident from Exs.A.6 and A.7. Similar such reference was made in O.P.No.45 of 2005 wherein the market value was fixed at Rs.87/-. In support PW.3 produced Ex.A.8-Award and Ex.A.9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned documents in Exs.A.1 to A.7, the dismissal of the appeals by the apex Court as could be evident from Exs.A.10 and A.11. PW.4 is another claimant in another submergence acquisition, whereby he produced Ex.A.12 award in O.S.No.36 of 2003 wherein the market rate was fixed at Rs.140/- per sq meter, and the appeal filed against the same was dismissed by this Court as could be evident from Exs.A.14. Therefore, it is this determination, which have been made by the Court and as confirmed at the highest level, though varying from Rs.40/-, Rs.60/- and 140/- etc., was pressed into service on behalf of the appellants. There is no sale transaction much less any material as already stated above to show in contra or even to rebut the material produced by the claimants. The Court below had in fact taken into consideration the market rate as fixed under Exs.A.8 to A.11 at Rs.87/- per sq meter and gave escalation of 10% and thereby fixed the market rate at Rs.97/- per sq meter. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the claimants pressing his cross-objections for further enhancement seeks to place reliance on market under Ex.A.13, which is fixed at Rs.140 per sq meter and therefore he states that there should have been further enhancement to that effect. No doubt, on behalf of the claimants there have been several similar such acquisitions, references and determinations filed, but all these are at different points of time in respect of different lands from different villages. There is no dispute however on behalf of the appellants that these villages where from the aforesaid documents and reference material has been produced are not neigbouring nor adjacent. Be that as it may, since there being no such similar acquisition from the very same village or in respect of the similarly situated land there from, it cannot be said that they could have direct bearing as such on the aspect of fixing the market rate. Therefore, we are of the view that simply by placing reliance only in respect of one set of such material in respect of references and the market rate as fixed cannot be proper as done by the Court below. Avoiding all other sets of material, which have been produced by the claimants the lower Court sought to place reliance only on Exs.A.8 and A.11 where the fixation was at Rs.87/- and the escalation was added. There is no reason as to why other material where market rate was fixed in respect of other villages could not be accepted or cannot form any basis. There is no doubt a totally parallel consideration in respect of the fixation of market rate in all these set of material. Therefore, we are of the view that by taking into account the market rate at Rs.40/-, 60/-,87/- and 140/-, safely market rate can be taken at average rate fixing the same at Rs.80/- per sq meter rather than the rate as fixed by the Court below. It also cannot be safely said as referred to by the Court below that Rs.87/- per sq meter could have been the market rate as on the date of notification or even on the date of other notifications and the gap of that period, would make the claimants to seek further usual escalation. Since there is no direct evidence as such as one could have been expected in the case of this nature especially to prove the market rate in respect of the lands of the same village and situated nearby and of similar nature, it cannot be said that this reference market fixation could form a firm basis to put them in straight jacket formula and accept the same. In the circumstances, the Court below was not right in fixing the market rate at Rs.87/- by giving escalation of 10% and bringing it to Rs.97/- per sq meter. Therefore, we hold that the claimants should be entitled to compensation at the market rate of Rs.80/- per sq meter in respect of the acquired lands along with all additional benefits as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below in O.P.No.37 of 2007, dated 4-8- 2008. The claimants are entitled to market rate at Rs.80/- per sq meter along with all additional benefits as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, the Cross-Objection (SR) 13303 of 2008 stands dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) ____________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD,J) dated:30-04-2011 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) LAAS.No.494 of 2008 And CROSS-OBJECTION (SR) 13303 OF 2008 Dated:30-04-2011