THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD A.S.NO.1547 OF 1994 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} The appellant-State filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 28.01.1991 passed in O.P.No.136 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Briefly stated, the facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the lands in question covered by this reference were acquired by the State Government for construction of Ooracheruvu at Jagataraopet Village. Subsequently, after the enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, an award was passed wherein the market rate for wet lands was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per acre, for dry lands at Rs.2,830/- per acre and for K.H.T. Lands at Rs.3,630/- per acre. Not satisfied thereby, the claimants sought reference. Hence, the matter came up along with several other lands covered under the same award. During the course of enquiry, after clubbing all such references, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the State, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B16 were marked. After taking into account the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, especially placing reliance on Ex.A3-copy of season and crop report issued by the Planning Officer, Khammam, for the years 1976-77 to 1979-80, the Court below adopted the Capitalization Method and enhanced the market value and fixed the rate at Rs.12,000/- per acre for wet lands, at Rs.8,000/- per acre for dry lands and at Rs.10,000/- per acre for K.H.T. lands. Hence, the appeal. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the appellant-State. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that no material was produced on behalf of the respondent and the Court below has straight away enhanced the market rate in the absence of any material evidence. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the State and on perusal of the material available on record, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the market rate as determined by the Court below is just and reasonable. There is no dispute to the fact that the lands are situated in scheduled areas and therefore, the question of production of sale transactions does not arise since there is prohibition. Hence, the claimants could not possibly file material evidence namely, sale transactions. Necessarily, one has to fall back on the other method of calculation i.e., Capitalization Method. Apart from their versions, as spoken to by P.W.1 and other witnesses, they sought to place reliance on Ex.A3, which is a season and crop report. The Court below has taken into consideration Ex.A3 and by giving due margin, fixed the said market rates. By taking into account Ex.A3, we do not find any error as such on the part of the Court below in arriving at such conclusion in fixing three different market rates for three different nature of lands. In rebuttal, as rightly stated, neither there are any sale transactions nor there is any material produced on behalf of the appellant-State. Even for supporting the lesser value, the appellant- State has not produced any documents. In the circumstances, we are of the view that in the absence of any material produced, it is not open for the appellant-State to assail the market rates as fixed by the Court below. Hence, we are of the view that the market rates fixed by the Court below are just and reasonable and there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. It is needless to mention that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 28th January 2011 RRB