THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.801 OF 1998 AND CROSS OBJEJCTIONS (SR) 56133 of 1998 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer,Mahabubabad, Warangal District …Appellant Vs. Ch.Laxminarayana and others ..Respondents/claimants/cross objector THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.801 OF 1998 AND CROSS OBJEJCTIONS (SR) 56133 of 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The Appeal arises out of the award in O.P.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Mahabubabad questioning the enhancement of the compensation. The land belonging to the claimants to an extent of Ac.3.0 ½ guntas at Nekkonda village was acquired for electrical sub station and a notification was given and an award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.8,000/- per acre. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimants contended that the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.50/- per square yard and the claimants will be entitled to the interest and solatium. After the reference was made, on behalf of the claimants, PWS.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1. After considering the material on record, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the market value to Rs.25,000/- per acre and did not grant all the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the State has preferred the appeal and being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the first claimant has preferred the cross objections claiming the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and reasonable? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for any further enhancement? 3. To what relief? POINTS:- As can be seen from the order of the lower court, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and PW.2 is the second claimant and neighbouring owners are examined as PWs.3 and 4. They have relied on Exs.A-1 to A-4 the sale transactions to canvas their contentions that the market value is more. Apart from the above documents, the claimants claimed that the acquired land is adjacent to the Railway track and at a distance of one kilometre from the village, which is a Grampanchayat and the land is in a developed area. Exs.A-3 and A-4 sale deeds are said to be subsequent to the notification and after taking possession of the land. The lower court did not take into consideration the above documents. Ex.A-1 is said to be touch map. The lower court has relied upon only sale deed available which is Ex.A-2 where under Ac.0.05 guntas of land was said to have been sold in Sy.No.427 and if the document is taken into consideration the value of one acre comes about Rs.1 lakh. The learned Subordinate Judge found that as Ex.A-2 refers only to a small extent of Ac.0.05 guntas and as the extent acquired is more than Ac.2.00, the above valuation cannot be accepted. Therefore, taking into consideration the location of the property and also the inconvenience for housing found that the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre would be reasonable. Having fixed so in the operative portion of the judgment, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- which was found as the compensation the claimants are entitled. Evidently, the claimants are in the position of the plaintiffs and if they want to challenge the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer or granted by the civil court, there should be some material to hold that real market value was not paid. As rightly found by the lower court Exs.A-3 and A-4 are of the year 1987 after possession of the land was taken, there is no proof of any agricultural activity in the acquired lands and the nature of the income derived from them. Further, there is no proof of potentialities of the land and the village itself is a small village. Therefore, it has to be held that the claimants have failed to prove that their claim of compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre as claimed in the cross objections is the real market value. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention of the claimants cannot be accepted. Sofar as the appeal filed by the State is concerned, in fact, the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge in para.14 of the judgment, it was categorically found “if the value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre it would meet the ends of justice”, that being the finding. Evidently, in the operative portion a mistake has crept in fixing the enhanced compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre which is evidently not based on any material evidence and inconsistent with the finding recorded earlier. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part and the market value fixed by the Court at Rs.25,000/- is found to be not correct and instead the claimants will be entitled for compensation at Rs.20,000/- per acre. As can be seen from the order of the lower court, no interest is granted on the solatium and also the additional market value since they are components of the compensation and as per the decision reported in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]) the claimants will be entitled for all the statutory benefits. Therefore, it is held that the claimants will be entitled to the interest on the enhanced market value and solatium which were not granted by the lower court. Accordingly, the points are answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is allowed in part and the market value of the land is fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre instead of Rs.25,000/-. However, it is held that the claimants will be entitled to the interest on the enhanced market value and solatium, which were not granted by the lower court. The Cross Objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).