IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO APPEAL SUIT No.265 OF 2002 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).No.13577 of 2002 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub-collector), Jagitial. … Petitioner And Baireneni Hanmantha Rao. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO APPEAL SUIT No.265 OF 2002 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).No.13577 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal and the cross objections under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) at the instance of Sub-collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Jagitial and claimant are directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial in O.P.No.35 of 1997 dated 20.08.2001, questioning the enhancement of the compensation and seeking further enhancement of the compensation, respectively. An extent of Ac.5-03 guntas of land in survey No.187/B situated at Erdandi village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal of Karimnagar District was acquired for providing house sites to 119 Beedi workers and other weaker section families of Erdandi Village as they lost their shelters due to the floods. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 08.09.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the due formalities passed an award in reference No.E/90/93, dated 15.03.1996 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Claimant, who protested for the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer claiming land value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, sought for a reference. On such reference being made to the civil Court and on receipt of the notice in the above O.P., claimant appeared and filed necessary claim statement claiming that the acquired land is covered with irrigation facilities under Sriramsagar project and he used to raise commercial crops like sugarcane, turmeric and used to get annual income of Rs.5,000/- per acre. The acquired land is fertile and having all facilities of irrigation and there are two wells through which they used to irrigate the lands and also covered with the stone fencing and the value of the wells was claimed at Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In order to substantiate the market value of the acquired land, apart from claimant examining himself as P.W.1, the purchaser under Ex.A1 examined as P.W.2, the vendor under Ex.A2 examined as P.W.3 and one more witness examined as P.W.4 and Exs.A1 and A2 certified copies of registered sale deeds dated 19.03.1991 and 22.04.1991 respectively were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, one witness examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1-Award copy, Ex.B2-certiied copy of registered sale deed and Ex.B3 – Consent letter addressed to the Sub-Collector, Jagitial by the claimant were marked. The reference Court after discarding Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds, which are only Ac.0-01 gunta each of land, sold by the claimant himself under Ex.A1 and P.W.3 under Ex.A2 and since the acquired land is situated on the banks of the river Godavari, which is 6 k.ms distance away from the Mandal headquarters, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre relying upon sale consideration under Ex.B2, where Ac.0-10 guntas of wet land was sold at Rs.2,500/-, which works out to Rs.10,000/- per acre. Questioning the same the present appeal and the cross objections by the claimant seeking further enhancement. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contends that though Exs.A1 and A2 sale deeds are of small bits, some necessary deduction should be given for fixing the market value. Even if 1/3rd is deducted towards the developmental charges, the market value works out to more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Therefore, the claimant is claiming only Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, which is reasonable to be awarded. He further contended that the reference Court failed to award additional market value under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act on the enhanced compensation, which they are entitled as per law. Learned Government Pleader opposed the enhancement contending that the claimant-P.W.1 himself is the vendor of the sale deed under Ex.A1, where Ac.0-01 gunta of land was sold. Similarly, Ex.A2 was brought up sale deed for Ac.0-01 gunta only to claim higher market value on coming to know of the acquisition proposals and hence, the same cannot form the basis for fixation of the market value. As per Ex.B2 sale deed, Ac.0-10 guntas of agricultural land was sold for Rs.2,500/- which works to Rs.10,000/- per acre, which is on 01.07.1992 and even if two years escalation is given, the market value will not increase Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, appeal filed by the Government has to be allowed reducing the market value. In the light of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration is what is the true market value for which the claimant is entitled? POINT:- Indisputably Ex.A1 sale deed was executed by P.W.1-claimant on 19.03.1991 in favour of one P.Narasinga Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao, where Ac.0-01 gunta namely 121 square yards was sold for Rs.4,000/- and the recitals in the sale deed states that the entire amount of Rs.4,000/- was received by him earlier for his family necessities and in receipt of the same, the sale deed was executed. Similarly, under Ex.A2, P.W.3-A.Gangaram sold Ac.0-01 gunta of land i.e., 121 square yards for Rs.3,900/-, the consideration of which was already received by him earlier and the land was also handed over to him earlier, which was attested by the vendor under Ex.A2. Both the documents do not reflect payment of any consideration before the Registrar, which reflects that the consideration was already paid and possession was delivered. If that be the case, necessary evidence has to be let in by the claimant about the receipt of the amount earlier and delivery of possession as reflected in the revenue records. In the absence of the same, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that both the sale deeds are brought up documents at the instance of the claimant to claim higher compensation for the acquired land. If the said sale deeds are eschewed, there is no other evidence except the oral evidence of the claimant and the documentary evidence under Ex.B2. In view of insertion of Section 51-A of the Act, though the document is not proved by examining vendor or vendee, the contents of the same can be taken into consideration. Under Ex.B2 admittedly an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas of wet land was sold for Rs.2,500/- which works out to Rs.10,000/- per acre on 01.07.1992 situated in survey No.356/B. In the absence of any evidence let in by the Land Acquisition Officer that the survey No.356/B is proximity to the acquired land, the same also cannot be taken as a comparable sale for fixation of the market value. Then remains only the oral evidence of the claimant P.W.1 and also the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer i.e., R.W.1. The claimant, who examined himself as P.W.1, stated that the acquired land is adjacent to the village Abadi and were irrigated through the water of Sriramsagar project and used to raise commercial crops like sugarcane and used to get annual income of Rs.50,000/- per acre. His evidence that the acquired land is covered with the fencing wall all around, was also not disproved by putting any suggestion or by leading any substantial evidence by the Land Acquisition Officer. But the fact remains that no compensation is claimed for the fencing wall by the claimant, whereas he claimed Rs.20,000/- for the stone wall, which clearly discloses that there was no wall at all. Similarly, the Land Acquisition Officer himself examined as R.W.1 also admitted that the acquired land though classified as dry land, two wet crops i.e., paddy and sugar cane crops are usually raised in the acquired land. In view of the admission made by the Land Acquisition Officer, we take that the claimant cultivated the land with the crops like sugarcane and plantain and even on conservative estimation, after deducting the expenditure required for cultivation of the said crops, the land owner will get Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre for the crops so raised. Sugarcane is a one year crop, which requires water through out the year, whereas Plantain crops can be grown two times. Even if one crop is taken at Rs.2,500/- per acre, and for the second crop, we can fix the market value at Rs.1,500/- per acre, which works out to Rs.4,000/- per acre average. Keeping in the view of the same, the land value can be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per acre, but not Rs.1,20,000/- as claimed by the cross-objectors. We accordingly, fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre. Claimant is also entitled to 12% p.a. additional market value on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification till the date of taking possession, which is deemed to have been taken on passing the award on 15.03.1996, apart from 30% interest on Solatium and additional market value. Claimant is also entitled to interest on such sum at 9% per annum on the above amounts for a period of one year from 15.03.1996 and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of realisation. In the result, the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dismissed. Cross-objection filed by the claimant is allowed, to the extent indicated above. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 9th June 2010 lmv