THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 262 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) Challenging the order and decree dated 04.07.2001 passed in O.P. No. 108 of 1999 by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, enhancing the market value of the acquired land of the respondent- claimant fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, from Rs.101/- to Rs.200/- per square yard, on the reference made under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada, filed the present appeal. Heard the Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. As can be seen from the record, possession of the acquired lands was taken over on 17.01.1987 and 4(1) notification was issued on 29.01.1987. A perusal of the order under appeal reveals that the respondent-claimant herein and claimants in other O.Ps., which were disposed of along with the present O.P. by the order under appeal, have examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and X1, on their behalf. From out of the documentary evidence adduced by them, the reference Court considered Ex.X1 document got marked through P.W.6, to be relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired, as it relates to the sale of the adjacent land took place in the year 1987 i.e. within reasonable time prior to the date of issuance of 4(1) notification. P.W.6 deposed that he purchased 177 square yards of land at the rate of Rs.200/- square yard in the year 1987, under Ex.X1 document, and that the distance between his land and the acquired land is about one furlong. The reference Court, while observing that except putting a suggestion that Ex.X1 is not helpful for determining the market value of the acquired lands, nothing was elicited from P.W.6 in the cross-examination, further referred to sale transactions under 2/86 and 3/86, which were discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value of the land acquired. The sale transactions under 2/86 and 3/86 relate to sale of land in the vicinity in an extent of 155 and 143 square yards respectively at the rate of Rs.190/- per square yard, in the year 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer, except stating that the lands covered by the said two transactions are situated at a distance of 200 yards from the National Highway and as such they cannot be compared with the lands under acquisition, did not state the distance between the National Highway and the acquired lands and did not assign cogent reasons for discarding the said two sale transactions, reflecting that the land in the vicinity was sold at Rs.190/- per square yard at the relevant point of time. On the other hand, it was the categorical evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 that the acquired lands are situated very nearer to the National Highway and this piece of their evidence remained un-rebutted. The reference Court, thus, having regard to the fact that the adjacent land was sold at Rs.200/- per square yard in the year 1987 under Ex.A1 and the sale transactions under 2/86 and 3/86, which were discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer without assigning cogent reasons, reflected the market value of the land in the vicinity to be Rs.190/-, held that fixation of market value at Rs.101/- per square yard by the Land Acquisition Officer is not proper and the market value of the lands under acquisition can be arrived at Rs.200/- per square yard, and accordingly fixed the market value of the lands under acquisition, which, we opine, is just and reasonable and needs no interference in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 12th July, 2011 IBL