THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR A S No. 2704 of 2004 and L A A S No. 1024 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per GR,J) These appeals are directed against the order and decree dated 23.4.2002 of the Reference Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district in O P No. 48 of 1991. By the said order, three references in O.P.Nos. 43, 44 and 48 of 1991 were disposed of. As already stated, these appeals pertain to O.P.No. 48 of 1991. L.A.A.s.No. 1024 of 2005 is preferred by the State aggrieved by the enhancement of the market value by the Reference Court to Rs.40/- from Rs.25 per sq.yard determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, while, A.S. No.2704 of 2004 is by the claimants seeking further enhancement of the market value. The lands in question are in Jillelaguda village and were acquired along with lands in surrounding villages, for laying a 100 feet vide bye-pass link road. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.5.1989 and after due procedure eventually an award was passed on 15.12.1989 determining the market value of the lands at Rs.25/- per sq. yard. The claimants aggrieved thereby sought reference and the reference was numbered as O P No. 48 of 1991. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the claimants presented the sale deeds covered by Ex.A1 to A3 in support of their claim for determination of the market value at Rs.160 per sq.yard. The transactions covered by Ex.A1 to A3 were admittedly after issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act pertaining to the present lands. This fact was recorded by the learned Reference Court. However, relying on the decision of the supreme Court in M.R. AJITRAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[1] which enunciated the principle that when sale of lands adjacent to the lands acquired was cited as an instance for determination of the market value, the same could not be altogether eschewed, merely because it was a post notification sale when there was no evidence indicating that there was a sharp or speculative rise of the land value after acquisition; but some deduction in the prices indicated in the sale deed must be made for factors such as rise in prices of lands after the acquisition, the learned Reference Court scaled down the value of the land from Rs.175/- per sq.yard as reflected in Ex.A1 (post notification sale) by deducting 50 % towards the possibility of sharp and speculative rise in prices and out of the amount of Rs.87.50 arrived thereby, a further deduction o Rs.47.50 was made, having regard to the larger extent of the land acquired vis a vis the smaller extent of land covered by Ex.A1 and arrived at a net value at Rs.40/- per sq.yard. The learned Reference Court also correlated this value by observing that in the award the Land Acquisition Officer had relied on 17 sales statistics of Jillelaguda village ranging from Rs.25/- to Rs.30/- but had taken into account only the lesser price of Rs.25/- per sq.yard. Further, it was observed that there was rise of Rs.5/- in the same year of the sale considered by the Land Acquisition Officer viz., 1987 and therefore inferred from this that 5 % increase every year was a normal occurrence, having regard to the fact that acquisition in question was in the year 1989 compared to the sale value relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer of the year 1987. The learned Reference Court held that an amount of Rs.40/- would represent the true market value in the year 1989 even considering the sale statistics considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since both these methodologies converged on the figure of Rs.40/-, the learned Reference Court was persuaded to the conclusion that Rs.40/- per sq.yard constitutes a fair and rational assessment of the market value of the land as on 16.5.1989, the date of issuance of the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and accordingly determined the market value at Rs.40/- per sq.yard. We find no error in the process of reasoning adopted by the Reference Court, especially the principle of determining the market value, warranting appellate interference. L.A.A.S No.1024 of 2005 preferred by the State is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Insofar as A.S.No. 2704 of 2004 is concerned, as already observed it is a claimants appeal seeking further enhancement of the market value of the property acquired. When called for hearing along with the appeal filed by the State today there is no representation on behalf of the claimants, though the name of MrG Satya Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant herein is reflected in the cause list. A.S.No. 2704 of 2004 is therefore dismissed for default. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE: 21.12.2010 TVK 121 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR A S No. 2704 of 2004 and L A A S No. 1024 of 2005 DATE: 21.12.2010 [1] AIR 1989 SC 2051