IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.127 OF 2002 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Nandyal. ..... Appellant And Kuruva Chinna Narasimhulu …Respondent APPEAL SUIT No.142 OF 2002 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Nandyal. ..... Appellant And Mulla Nabi Saheb & another …Respondents APPEAL SUIT No.152 OF 2002 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Nandyal. ..... Appellant And Mulla Khasi Saheb …Respondent And APPEAL SUIT No.3396 OF 2003 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Nandyal. ..... Appellant And Devagudi Pedda Khasim & another …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.127, 142, 152 OF 2002 and 3396 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) These four appeals are directed against the awards passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.48, 49, 50 to 51 of 2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Allagadda, on 22.11.2000, in pursuance of the common order rendered by the reference Court. 2. Ac. 9.40 cents of dry land belonging to the respondents in these appeals respectively was acquired by the State in Alamur of Rudravaram Mandal for the purpose of restoration of Gullakunta tank near Harinagar. The draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), was published on 10.11.1989, while possession was taken earlier on 20.04.1986. Under Award No.2/91-92, dated 02.11.1991, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.3,000/- per acre. On protest by the claimants, the matter was referred to the civil Court and the claimants contended before the reference Court that the lands were worth Rs.15,000/- per acre. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined R.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 and B-1. 3. It rendered the impugned common order noting that the purchaser, under Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.06.1988, was examined as R.W.2 and he spoke about his purchase of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.Nos.1237 and 342 for Rs.11,400/-. His purchase was based on the sale of Ac. 1.02 cents of land by Gaddam Husan Sab for Rs.10,200/-. Gaddam Husan Sab was examined as R.W.3. The reference Court opined that the claim of R.W.1, one of the claimants, is based on sale transactions at or about the relevant time in the village and his claims are corroborated by R.Ws.2 and 3. R.W.3 also deposed about onion, kandi, ground nut and jowar being raised in the lands, all of which had similar fertility and which were yielding an income of Rs.5,000/- per acre per annum. Except marking the award, the Referring Officer did not produce any other evidence before the reference Court and the reference Court noted that the award itself stated about the acquired lands being fertile lands irrigated under Gullakunta tank. The reference Court, under the circumstances, found nothing to doubt the genuineness of Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.06.1988, and fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.7,000/- per acre. The reference Court also awarded the additional market value at 12% per annum, solatium at 30% per annum and interest from the date of taking possession i.e., 20.04.1986 at 9% per annum for one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the payment of the enhanced compensation. 4. The State preferred these four appeals contending that Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.06.1988, for a small extent, could not have been relied on for fixing the market value, more so, when there was no evidence to establish the acquired land and the land under Ex.B-1-Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.06.1988, to be of same potentiality and fertility. 5. Heard Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The point for consideration is whether the market value and the consequential benefits awarded by the reference Court need to be interfered with for any reason? 7. The impugned common order, dated 22.11.2000, by the reference Court extensively and exhaustively referred to the entire material on record including the contents of Ex.A-1-award which itself noted the acquired lands to be fertile lands irrigated under a tank though classified as dry lands. The evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 about purchase of lands in the vicinity for a much higher value cannot be rejected for any reason in the absence of any material to attribute any interestedness to R.Ws.2 and 3 so as to resort to falsehood in favour of the claimants. The evidence of one of the claimants as R.W.1 is, thus, corroborated by the purchase of Acre 1.14 cents for Rs.11,400/-, spoken by R.W.2 and the purchase of Acre 1.02 cents for Rs.10,200/-, spoken by R.W.3. R.W.1 specifically spoke about similar sale transactions in his village at or about the relevant time and R.W.3 spoke about the potentiality of the lands in question to yield an annual income of Rs.5,000/- per acre from agriculture. R.W.3 also spoke about another sale transaction of Ac. 0.12 cents of land for Rs.1,200/- in S.No.1237 and while Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was on 10.11.1989, the comparable sales relied on by R.Ws.1 to 3 were in fact much earlier and there could have been only an escalation in price and not depreciation in value in the meanwhile, taking into account the ordinary and natural course of human events. Still the reference Court fixed the market value of the land a little lower and not higher and the mere fact that Ex.B-1 was for a too small extent alone need not deter the Court from taking it as the basis for arriving at the correct valuation. 8. Insofar as the consequential statutory benefits awarded by the reference Court are concerned, the interest component awarded by the reference Court from the date of taking possession itself anterior to Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act appears to be in contravention of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in R.L. JAIN VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS[1], wherein the Apex Court pointed out that the claimant is not entitled to any interest for the period since taking over possession till the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 (1). The Apex Court was categorical that even on equitable ground, the claimants will not be entitled to any such amount or interest. Therefore, the impugned award has to be modified to that extent. 9. In the result, the awards in L.A.O.P.Nos.48, 49, 50 & 51 of 2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Allagadda, dated 22.11.2000, are modified to the extent of awarding interest at 9% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for a period of one year and thereafter, at 15% per annum to the date of payment on the enhanced compensation and the awards are confirmed in all other respects. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed without costs except to the extent of such modification. _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) _______________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: 30th December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.127, 142, 152 OF 2002 and 3396 of 2003 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) December 30, 2010. KL [1] 2004 (4) SCC 79