THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO.2292 OF 2000 ORDER: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Anantapur is the appellant, who filed this Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, assailing the correctness of the judgment dated 28th April 2000 in O.P.No. 83 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereby and whereunder the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.28,000/- per acre in respect of the lands in Survey No.72-1 and Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre for the lands in Survey No. 74. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The land in an extent of 2-71-5 hectares in Survey Nos. 72-1, 72-1, 72-3 and 74, in which the respondent- claimant has half share, was acquired by the Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of foreshore submersion of PABR dam. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into consideration the market value prevailing at that time, awarded the compensation at Rs.1,32,223/- by fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre for the lands in Survey No. 72-1 and at Rs.4,000/- per acre for the lands in Survey No. 74. He estimated the value of tamarind trees at Rs.8,800/- per tree and the value of the wells at Rs. 16,799/- and Rs.6,486/- which are situate in Survey Nos. 72-2 and 72- 3 respectively. The claimant received the compensation, though, under protest, and sought for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act to a civil Court seeking hike in compensation. Before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, to substantiate her claim, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also P.W.2 and got marked Ex. A1, extract of sale deed for Rs.45,000/- executed in favour of P.W.2. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, Exs.B1 and B2 were got marked. The claimant in her testimony stated that the land under acquisition was a fertile land and she had been getting income of Rs.8,000/- per acre from the land in Survey No. 72, apart from enjoying the usufruct from the tamarind trees, palmyrah trees, etcetera. In support of her contention, she produced Ex.A1, dated 6th February 1988, whereunder the land in an extent of Ac.1.23 cents was sold for Rs.45,000/-. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, after taking into account the sale statistics prevalent in 1987 and also placing reliance upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant and also keeping in view Ex.B2 Award proceedings, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the land in Survey No. 72-1 was classified as Group I and it is a fertile land, thought it appropriate to enhance the market value for the land in Survey No.72-1 from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.28,000/- per acre and at Rs.5,000/- for the land acquired in Survey No. 74, while confirming the value fixed for trees and structures therein. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pay the consequential benefits like solatium at 30% on the market value, additional market value at 12% from the date of notification till the date of taking possession and interest at 9% for the period of one year from the date of taking possession and at 15% for the remaining period till the date of deposit. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contends that the reference Court has erred in placing reliance upon Ex.A1, which is not a comparable sale at all and enhanced the market value without any basis. We have gone through the judgment under Appeal. Admittedly, the sale transaction that took place under Ex.A1 shows that the land in an extent of Ac.1.23 cents was sold at Rs.45,000/-. The said fact was corroborated by examining P.W.2. It is not in doubt that the land covered under Ex.A1 and the subject land are located in the same area. Further, from a perusal of Ex.B2 Award proceedings, it is clear that the land in Survey No. 72-1 was classified as Group I and it fetches more value. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly enhanced the compensation and it does not warrant any interference. The Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J ksld 22nd December 2009