HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.662 OF 2000 Dt.30.6.2010 Between: The Special Deputy Collector (L.A) Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. ..Appellant And Battala Suryanarayana Murthy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.662 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice Noushad Ali) The Land Acquisition Officer is the appellant and respondents are the claimants. The appeal is filed challenging the enhancement of compensation as awarded in O.P.No.761 of 1996, dated 13.11.1997, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of road widening. An extent of 472 sq.ft., of claimant No.1 and an extent of 225 sq.ft., of claimant No.2 was acquired under award No.13 of 1986 dated 2.8.1986 for the said purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer basing on document No.939, dated 20.2.1981, fixed the market value at Rs.50/- per sq.yard. As the claimants were not satisfied, on requisition, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On such reference, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.yard along with other statutory benefits. It is this order, which is under challenge in this appeal. Heard both the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable and the amount enhanced under the impugned order is excessive and does not reflect the just and reasonable compensation. We have perused the evidence on record. The 1st claimant examined himself as C.W.1 and the son of the claimant No.2 was examined as C.W.2. The vendor of Ex.A-1 was examined as C.W.3. C.W.1 in his evidence stated that the market value of the acquired site is Rs.1000/- per sq.yard. However, he claimed compensation for the site at Rs.500/- per sq.yard. He also claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of structures such as bath room, latrine, store room and passage. However, claimant No.1 did not adduce any evidence that any structure existed on the acquired land. Therefore, the question of paying compensation for structures does not arise. C.W.2 in his evidence stated that there was a flourmill on the site acquired and he used to get Rs.1000/- per month prior to demolition. According to his evidence, the land covered by Ex.A-1 document is at a distance of 100 feet from the acquired site. He relied on Ex.A-1 which reflected the sale at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- for an extent of 100 sq.yards i.e, at the rate of Rs.1000/- per sq.yard. To support his contentions with regard to Ex.A-1, the vendor of Ex.A-1 was examined as C.W.3. C.W.3 in his evidence stated that he sold his house covered by Ex.A-1 to one U.Venkatarao for Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 1983 and the site covered by the house was 100 sq.yards with measurements as 30 x 30. C.W.3 also further deposed that the acquired land is just at a distance of 100 feet to the house covered by Ex.A-1. This is the evidence available on record. A perusal of the evidence of C.Ws.1, 2 and 3 would clearly establish that the site acquired was very close at a distance of 100 feet from the site covered by Ex.A-1. To this extent there is no dispute. The Reference Court in fact at one stage observed that Ex.A-1 document is comparable sale with the acquired site. However, the Reference Court relied on the sale deeds referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer. For this reason, it cannot be said that Ex.A-1 is not comparable document with reference to the site acquired. During the enquiry one such sale deed referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer relates to an extent of 294 sq.yards, which was sold at Rs.80,000/-. Taking the said sale deed into consideration, the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.300/- per sq.yard. Having regard to the fact that the acquired site is very close to the site covered by Ex.A-1 and the sale deed referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer with reference to the sale of 294 sq.yards, which was relied upon by the Reference Court, we are of the opinion that the market value as fixed by the Reference Court is just and reasonable and not excessive. In this view of the matter, the appeal has no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30.6.2010 kpr