HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA APPEAL SUIT Nos.790, 956, 957, 958, 962, 964, 965, 966, 969, 971, 972, 974, 975, 976, 978, 981, 983, 985, 987 AND 990 OF 2003 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS (S.R.) Nos.82749 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.790 OF 2003, 39507 OF 2004 IN A.S. No.962 OF 2003, 52517 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.964 OF 2003, 48505 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.965 OF 2003, 48507 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.966 OF 2003, 52516 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.969 OF 2003, 52514 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.971 OF 2003, 52515 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.974 OF 2003, 48495 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.975 OF 2003, 48506 OF 2003 IN A.S. No.978 OF 2003, 39508 OF 2004 IN A.S. No.985 of 2003 AND 39506 OF 2004 IN A.S. No.987 OF 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy) The batch of appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act’), is preferred by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, through its Zonal Manager, Vijayawada, aggrieved of the common order, dated 10-01- 2003, in O.P. Nos.77 of 1995, 69 and 74 of 2000, 89 of 1995, 81, 95, 76 and 90 of 2000, 91 and 93 of 1995, 67 of 2000, 86 of 1995, 84 of 2000, 90 of 1995, 94 of 2000, 92 and 88 of 1995, 92 and 80 of 2000 and 94 of 1995, respectively, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, whereas the batch of cross-objections (S.R.) is preferred against the same common order by the claimants in O.P. Nos.77 of 1995, 81, 95, 76 and 90 of 2000, 91, 93 and 86 of 1995, 84, 94, 92 and 80 of 2000, respectively, only. 2. In the batch of appeals, respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2 is the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the appellant is referred to as APIIC, respondent No.1 – cross-objectors as claimants and respondent No.2 as the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. The land belonging to the claimants is part of Acs.47.72 cents of land, covered by various survey numbers, situated in Pothepalli Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District. The said lands were acquired under the provision of the Act for the purpose of establishment of an industrial estate, by APIIC. 5. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 14-05-1991 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29-01-1992. The Land Acquisition Officer, having surveyed the sale deeds, by considering about 107 sale transactions that have taken place during the preceding three years of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, passed Award No.5 of 1993, dated 04-02-1994, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. 6. Dissatisfied with the market value of the acquired land, fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants sought reference by filing applications under Section 18 of the Act and the same were referred to the reference Court. 7. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer / APIIC, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-21 were marked; and through the witnesses, Exs.X-1 to X-19 were also marked. 8. While considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the reference Court increased the market value of the acquired land from Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.70,222/- per acre. Aggrieved of the same, the batch of appeals is preferred by APIIC, whereas, seeking further enhancement, some of the claimants preferred cross-objections (S.R.) claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/-. 9. In the evidence produced on behalf of the claimants, there is a document under Ex.A-5, certificate of market value of the land issued by the Joint Registrar, dated 12-10-2000, which shows the market value of the acquired land, as per the basic value register certifying the basic value of the land, at Rs.25/- per square yard. 10. The reference Court, relying on the documentary evidence under Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4 and also Ex.A-5, recorded a finding that the value of the acquired land is Rs.1,21,000/- per acre, but ordered to deduct an amount of Rs.15,677/- per acre towards charges for improvement of the land, so as to make good the land on par with the lands covered by Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4. Thus, market value of the acquired land is arrived at Rs.1,05,333/- per acre; and, out of the same, after deducting 1/3rd of the value i.e., Rs.35,111/-, observing that the lands covered by Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 are smaller extents, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs,70,222/- per acre. Aggrieved of the same, the batch of appeals is preferred by APIIC, whereas cross- objections (S.R.) are preferred by some of the claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation. 11. It is submitted by Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for APIIC (appellant), that the Land Acquisition Officer, himself, has surveyed the entire sale transactions and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre, which was prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, but, the reference Court, enhanced the compensation, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.70,222/- per acre, without recording any valid reasons. 12. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant in A.S. No.790 of 2003 and the cross-objections (S.R.) therein, and Sri T. Durga Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the claimants in all other appeals and the cross-objections (S.R.), that the land in question is nearer to Machilipatnam Town and it has great potential value. It is submitted that there is documentary evidence under Ex.A-6, under which, Ac.0-05 cents of land was sold for Rs.15,000/-, which works out to Rs.61-50 paise per square yard and Rs.2,97,660/- per acre, and, in spite of such evidence on record, without assigning any valid reasons, the documentary evidence under Exs.A-5 and A- 6 is discarded. It is further submitted that, in any event, deduction of 1/3rd of the value, out of Rs.1,05,333/-, as the lands covered by Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 are smaller extents, is erroneous more so, as the land was acquired for the purpose of industrial estate, but not for housing. 13. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, we have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. 14. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the acquired land is situated in Pothepalli village, which is about 2½ KMs. away from Machilipatnam Town. Machilipatnam is a notified municipality and a developed town. Even as per the documentary evidence under Ex.A-5, which was issued as per the basic value register maintained by the office of the Sub Registrar, for the purpose of registering the documents, value of the acquired land was Rs.25/- per square yard, which comes to, approximately, Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. Under Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4, sale transactions, dated 19-02-1991, admeasuring 1-06 cents, 84 cents and 83 cents of lands, respectively, were sold, and as per the sale consideration mentioned therein, value of the lands works out to about Rs.1,21,000/- per acre, which is, almost, in conformity with the value averred in Ex.A-5, certificate of market value as per the basic value register. Thus, the reference Court has rightly considered Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4, as comparable sales, which gain support from the documentary evidence under Ex.A-5 also. 15. At the same time, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the reference Court, based on Ex.A-6 sale transaction, fixed the market value of the acquired land. But, Ex.A-6 is the only available sale transaction covering an extent of Ac.0-05 cents. To prove documentary evidence under Ex.A-6, PW.7 was examined. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to PW.7 stating that to boost up the prices/value of the land, in view of the acquisition of lands proposed for Autonagar, the neighbouring land-holders have intentionally shown the value of the land more than the prevailing market value. A reference was also made to the publication stated to have been issued by the members of Autonagar Welfare Association, in this regard. Having regard to the extent of land, which is only Ac.0-05 cents, under Ex.A-6, and in view of the oral evidence on record, we are of the view that the sale transaction under Ex.A-6 cannot be taken as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land. 16. At the same time, as it is proved that during the relevant point of time, market value in the vicinity of the acquired land was Rs.1,21,000/- per acre, as evident from the documentary evidence under Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4, which is proved by the oral evidence on record, the reference Court, to equate the value of the acquired land to that of the lands covered by Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4, ordered deduction of Rs.15,677/- per acre. However, having regard to the potentiality of the land and the purpose of its acquisition, such deduction is not warranted for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. At the same time, we are of the view that comparable sales under Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 are, approximately, covering an extent of Ac.1-84 cents, Ac.0- 84 cents and 0-83 cents of lands, respectively, and as the total area acquired is about Acs.47.72 cents, deduction should be made for development of the land i.e., for laying roads and leaving open sites etc., to make use of such land for the purpose of industrial sites. Hence, keeping in mind, the extents of the lands covered by Exs.A-2 to A-4, we are of the view that the reference Court has rightly ordered deduction of 1/3rd value, towards development of the land, to arrive at the correct market value of the acquired land. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that market value of the acquired land can be fixed at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. However, after deducting 1/3rd value, out of Rs.1,21,000/-, market value of the acquired land is to be fixed at Rs.80,667/- (Rupees eighty thousand six hundred and sixty seven only) per acre instead of Rs.70,222/- per acre, arrived at by the reference Court, and the same is accordingly fixed, which the claimants are entitled to, for the entire acquired land. It is needless to observe that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits in accordance with law as per the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984). 18. Accordingly, the batch of appeals preferred by APIIC is dismissed and the batch of cross-objections (S.R.) preferred by the claimants are allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending stand disposed of. ___________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J March 11, 2014. PV