HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No. 2243 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This appeal is directed against the award rendered by the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in Land Acquisition O.P.No.19 of 1993 on 04.07.2000 enhancing the compensation awarded to the respondents herein. Proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated for providing house sites to weaker sections at Issannapally village of Sadashivnagar Mandal of Nizamabad District and the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of an extent of Acs.3.17 guntas of land was approved by the Collector on 24.02.1992 invoking the urgency clause. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were duly published and issued and after award enquiry, where the persons interested stated the value of the lands to be Rs.25,000/- per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the same at Rs.8,000/- per acre under his award dated 25.03.1992. On the protest of the claimants, a reference was made to the Civil Court wherein the claimants contended that the compensation fixed and awarded was arbitrary and does not represent the market value. The claimants stated that the dry lands acquired for the purpose of house sites are very near and adjacent to the village and have great potentiality for conversion into house sites. The land is very near to the Mandal Headquarters and Kamareddy town and the village has all the general amenities like electricity, roads, schools, protected water tank etc. The claimants further claim that they were earning Rs.3,000/- per acre by raising maize, jowar sugarcane, vegetables etc., in the lands and capitalization method would have resulted in assessing its value at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The market rate of the lands of the vicinity was Rs.15/- to Rs.20/- per square yard and the Land Acquisition Officer should have awarded atleast Rs.20/- per square yard or Rs.25,000/- per acre. The claimants also contended that in the neighbouring villages, when the Government acquired lands in 1983-1984 and 1984-1985, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5/- per square yard and Rs.16,500/- per acre. Hence, the claimants sought for such compensation with all the statutory benefits. The reference Court examined R.Ws 1 to 3 on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A.1, Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked during the enquiry. In the impugned award, it considered whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation due to inadequacy of the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court referred to the factual back ground and the evidence on record and referring to the principles governing fixation of compensation, the reference Court felt that the evidence of R.W.1 alone is not sufficient to adopt the capitalization method for determination of the market value. Though he claimed that various crops raised in the acquired lands were yielding income, it was not considered desirable, as comparable sales are available, as seen from Ex.A.1 award. The reference Court felt that Ex.B.1 copy of the registered sale deed obtained by R.W.1 under which R.W.2 purchased 260 square yards of house site for consideration of 10/- per square yard and Ex.B.2 copy of the order in O.P.No.332 of 1988 on the file of the same Court provide material for enhancement of market value. The reference Court noted that in O.P.No.332 of 1988, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.16,000/- per acre and the evidence of R.W.3, whose land was acquired in Ramareddy village, was also relied on, while noting that the Land Acquisition Officer did not refer to Ex.B.1 sale deed. While fixing the market value, the Court noted that the Land Acquisition Officer himself observed the dry lands to be of great potentiality as house sites by virtue of their convenient location. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence, the reference Court concluded that by adopting the yard age basis, the compensation can be Rs.5/- per square yard and the claimants are entitled to more than Rs.20,000/- per acre. Consequently, the reference Court determined the market value at Rs.16,000/- per acre noting that earlier, the persons whose lands of Ramareddy village were acquired, were awarded a compensation of Rs.16,000/- per acre by the Civil Court. The claimants were also awarded the consequential statutory benefits. The State challenging the enhancement of compensation claimed the enhancement to be excessive and the reliance by the trial Court on Exs.B.1 and B.2 to be incorrect. Smt.A.B.Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri S.Bhooma Goud, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. The point for consideration is whether the determination of compensation by the reference Court was excessive and unreasonable? The reference Court noted that the Land Acquisition Officer in his award discarded most of the 28 sale transactions, the details of which were collected, on one or the other ground and adopted only the sale transaction at Sl.No.4 concerning Acs.2.04 guntas of S.No.159 sold at Rs.12,600/-. In view of the timelag by the relevant time, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.8,000/- as against Rs.6,000/- per acre under that transaction. But it was noticed by the reference Court that the evidence of R.Ws 1 and 2 was about much higher value of similar lands. Even assuming that R.W.1 as the third claimant is interested in his own claim, the same cannot be said to be true in respect of R.W.2 who purchased the land under Ex.B.1 at the cost of Rs.10/- per square yard. The claim of R.W.2 that he constructed a house in that plot is not seriously in dispute and R.W.3 was also speaking about an acquisition 6 years earlier for which the Civil Court fixed the compensation by enhancing at Rs.16,000/- per acre in O.P.No.332 of 1988. Ex.B.2 shows R.W.3 to be the 4th claimant therein and there is no ostensible reason for rejecting the evidence of R.W.3. Though the judgment in O.P.No.332 of 1988 relates to a much older acquisition and though the evidence on record even in the opinion of the reference Court would justify grant of a minimum of Rs.5/- per square yard or Rs.20,000/- per acre, the reference Court was in fact conservative in confining the market value of lands in question to Rs.16,000/- per acre as was done years before, under Ex.B.2, by the Civil Court. The consequential statutory benefits on such compensation are a matter of legal entitlement for the claimants and the fixation of the market value or the grant of statutory benefits cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable on such material on record, more so in the absence of any contrary evidence for the appellant. The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 23rd December, 2010. PNV