IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.2189 OF 2000 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer/ Mandal Revenue Officer, Huzurnagar. ..... Appellant And Mudala Rayapa Reddy & 4 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.2189 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) The appeal is directed against the award passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, in O.P.No.15 of 1991, dated 25.04.2000. 2. The acquisition of Ac. 4.28 guntas in Sy.No.356 and Ac. 0.28 guntas in Sy.No.357/E of Yepalasingaram Village for providing house sites to the weaker sections led to the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), with the claimants being aggrieved by the award of only Rs.10,000/- per acre under Ex.B-1 award by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. The claimants claimed the value existing by the time of acquisition to be Rs.80,000/- per acre, more so, due to the location of the acquired lands on the road from Huzurnagar to Mellachervu where several cement industries came up and there was lot of commercial demand, the lands being adjacent to the village near the new Bus Stand and they were yielding an annual income of Rs.20,000/- from commercial crops. The claim for enhancement was resisted by the State and during the enquiry, after claimant Nos.3 to 5 came on record as legal representatives of the deceased second claimant, P.Ws.1 to 8 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.X-1 to X-3 and B-1 were marked. 4. The reference Court passed the impugned award referring to the rival contentions and evidence extensively and noted that the award itself mentioned the lands under acquisition to be located on roadside from Huzuranagar to Mellacheruvu adjacent to the existing village and opposite to the new Bus Stand. The Court also noted the very acquisition to be due to the suitability of the acquired lands for house sites and the lands at the entrance of the village were being irrigated under Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal. The reference Court also referred to the evidence of P.W.1 about getting an annual income of Rs.20,000/- per acre from cultivation of those lands and it also referred to the evidence of the purchasers, P.Ws.2 to 4, under Exs.X-1 to X-3 about the existing value of the lands in the locality being not less than Rs.3,000/- per gunta. Based on the evidence of the purchasers, P.Ws.2 to 4, corroborated by the scribe of Exs.X-1 to X-3 as P.W.8, the reference Court was of the view that the claims of the claimants who deposed as P.Ws.1 and 7 were corroborated in respect of sale transactions at about the time of the acquisition which were probablised to be genuine. The reference Court went into the details of the objections raised against the acceptability of Exs.X-1 to X-3 and though it considered that Exs.X-1 to X-3 could not be taken into consideration in the light of they being 17 years prior to the evidence and for other reasons, the reference Court referred to Ex.B-1-award itself as referring to comparable sales with a minimum of Rs.7,466/- per acre under a registered Sale Deed, dated 27.07.1979. Considering the evidence about the heavy demand for the house sites and the location of the acquired lands which was uncontradicted, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was considered too low and the claimants could be entitled to a reasonable enhancement, at least based on the usual settlement of the land acquisition matters by the State before the Lok Adalat with an offer of 100% escalation of the awarded amount. It was on that basis that the reference Court considered grant of Rs.17,500/- per acre as compensation along with all other statutory benefits under the Act to be reasonable and appropriate. 5. The State preferred the present Appeal contending that the claimants failed to prove the market value as claimed by them and the reference Court had no basis for enhancing the compensation to an excessive level. 6. Smt. A.B. Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether the assessment of the market value by the reference Court is not on a reasonable basis? 8. The impugned award by the reference Court had extensively referred to the rival contentions and oral and documentary evidence and from the admitted facts, it concluded the location of the acquired lands to be strategic with reference to the location of the new Bus Stand opposite to the acquired lands and with reference to industries that were coming up before the relevant time. It is also deduced from the evidence that it was after a vigorous search for suitable house sites for the weaker sections in the entire village and its surroundings that this land was identified as the most suitable for such purpose. The lands being irrigated under Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal is a matter of record and as noted by the reference Court, the claims of the witnesses for the claimants about the probable income they were deriving from cultivation of the land stood uncontroverted by any evidence. Though Exs.X-1 to X-3 under which P.Ws.2 to 4 purchased the respective lands and for which P.W.8 was the scribe were not acted upon by the reference Court for the reasons stated by it, if it were to be remembered that the civil dispute ought to have been decided on broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence without requiring any proof beyond reasonable doubt, it appears that the reference Court was more strict and rigid than required in not acting upon Exs.X-1 to X-3 which would have enabled the claimants to claim more compensation than awarded by the reference Court. The reference Court took into account the fact that before Lok Adalat, 100% enhancement than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was normally accepted even by the State and the said fact not being disputed by the State before the reference Court, it cannot be considered to be not providing reasonable basis for arriving at the probable market value at the relevant time. As the value fixed does not appear to be divorced from the evidence on record, the enhancement cannot be interfered with in this Appeal, which interference will be justified only on proof of existence of very strong and convincing reasons. Under the circumstances, the Appeal has to fail. 9. In the result, the Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) _______________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: 22nd December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.2189 OF 2000 (Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) December 22, 2010. KL