IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH [29H] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2321 of 2000 & A.S.No.2329 of 2000 AS No.2321 of 2000: Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool district … Appellant And: G.Rama Chenna Reddy … Respondent AS No.2329 of 2000: Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool district … Appellant And: G. Chenna Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2321 of 2000 & A.S.No.2329 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT:[Per AGR, J] The Mandal Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, filed these two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation in OP Nos.25 and 26 of 1989 from Rs.21,800/- to Rs.38,500/- per acre respectively. 2. An extent of Ac.1.44 cents in Sy.No.108/2 of Chapirevula village, Nandyal Taluq, belonging to the respondents-claimants in each O.P, was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and minorities. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 15.07.1986 and possession was taken on 30.04.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying the necessary formalities, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.21,800/- as per his Award No.1/86-87 dated 23.07.1987, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimants in both OPs sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On reference being received in the above OPs, the claimants appeared and filed necessary claim statements, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 3. To prove the inadequacy of the market value, each of the claimants in OP.Nos.25 and 26 of 1989 were examined as RW.1 and two more witnesses as RWs.2 and 3, apart from marking Exs.B.1 and B.2 registration copy of the gift deed dated 04.09.1985 and xerox copy of the sale deed dated 19.06.1984, on their behalf. On behalf of the Referring Officer, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 Award was marked. 4. RW.1 stated that the land acquired is fit for house sites and it is abutting the village and hospital. RW.2, who is resident of Chapirevula, deposed that his wife conveyed 8¾ cents of land under Ex.B.1 for rastha purpose. The value of the land mentioned in the gift deed is Rs.800/- per cent, which works out to Rs.80,000/- per acre. RW.3 is the attestor of Ex.B.2 sale deed under which Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.314/1 was sold for Rs.35,000/- per acre by Venkata Laxmanna and his son in favour of Kasireddi Chalapathireddi. The sale statistics obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer also includes Ex.B.2 sale deed, which was referred as item No.4 of the sales statistics gathered by him in the award. But the Land Acquisition Officer took half of the consideration under Ex.B.2 and, after adding Rs.4,300/- to it to cover up the time gap between the sale deed and notification, fixed the market value at Rs.21,800/- per acre. Under Ex.B.2 dated 19.06.1984 Ac.1-00 of land was sold for Rs.35,000/- per acre, which is two years prior to issuance of notification. If 10% escalation for each year is added to Rs.38,500/-, the market value comes to Rs.45,200/- per acre. It is now fairly well settled that the contents recorded in the sale deeds can be taken into consideration, even without examining the vendor or vendee of the sale deed, for fixation of the market value. In the present case, the attestor of the sale deed-Ex.B-2 was examined to prove the sale transaction and no contra evidence has been adduceed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the sale deed is brought up as a whole. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer had relied upon the very same sale deed for fixation of the market value. Keeping in view of the same, the fixation of the market value by the reference Court at Rs.38,500/- per acre is justified and we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 5. Further, we see sufficient force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the appellant-State that the claimants are not entitled to interest from the date of taking possession, which is anterior to issuance of the notification. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants also fairly conceded that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of issuance of the notification. 6. Accordingly, the award of interest from 30.04.1986 by the reference Court is set aside and the interest is confined from the date of issuance of the notification i.e., 15.07.1986 at 9% per annum for a period of one year, not only on the enhanced compensation but also on the 30% solatium and additional market value and thereafter at 15% per annum. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.04.2010 Bss/lrkm