IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.NO.2306 OF 1998 Date:18-01-2011 Between:- Hussain Bi .. Appellant And Revenue Divisional Officer and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This appeal is directed against the Award in L.A.O.P.No.192 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandyal dated 13- 07-1998. 2. On the requisition of Nandyal Municipality, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired Ac.96-64cs for formation of 80 feet wide road and construction of a housing complex under the Integrated Urban Development Programme Scheme. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 12- 01-1983 and after deleting Ac.2-40cs in S.No.2311, only Ac.94-24cs were acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award No.23 of 1986 dated 23-09-1986 fixing the market value of the lands of category No.1 at Rs.80,000/-, category No.2 at Rs.40,000/- and category No.3 at Rs.30,000/- per acre. The land of Ac.1-67cs involved in this reference fell under category No.2, the fixing of compensation for which was protested against by the claimant/appellant herein on which the reference was made to the Civil Court. 3. The claimant contended before the Reference Court that the land is very fertile and of black cotton soil fit for raising commercial crops and it also has good potentiality to be converted into house sites, being within one mile from Nandyal Town. The proposed 80 feet wide road will be a vital link for commercial and industrial activity in Nandyal and around and number of housing colonies had come up on this road. The potentialities were not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and sales at item Nos.46 and 49 of the Award were discarded for no reason. The claimant, who has a large family to support and is poor, was deprived of the real market value, which was Rs.70,000/- per acre even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, who reduced it to Rs.40,000/- per acre on the instructions of the Joint Collector. Lands around were purchased for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre between 1980 and 1982 and hence, the claimant sought for fixing of the market value at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer of Nandyal Municipality impleaded as respondent to the reference did not file any pleading. 5. During the enquiry, the Reference Court examined R.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B-1 and A-1. 6. The Reference Court rendered the impugned Award referring to the factual background and noting that the Land Acquisition Officer had to fix the reduced market value for the lands under acquisition on the instructions of the Joint Collector and for category No.2 lands, the reduction was from Rs.70,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Referring to the evidence of the claimant as R.W.1, the purchaser under the original of Ex.B-1 as R.W.2 and the Municipal Town Surveyor as R.W.3, the Reference Court noted that the Municipality itself sold half of the acquired land in 1990 to the Housing Board for Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court also observed that in 1984, the Land Acquisition Officer valued the third category lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre and on adding the bank rate of interest, the sale at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre fits in with that calculation. The Reference Court, disagreeing with the Joint Collector and agreeing with the Land Acquisition Officer, considered the market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre to be quite reasonable. The sales covered by serial Nos.46 and 49 of Ex.A-1 Award were considered to be in respect of very fertile bits and the Reference Court also considered any evidence to be lacking to prove the utility of the land for raising commercial crops. Reference Court also noted the absence of any evidence to show the existence of any permanent structures in the land and refused to place any reliance on Ex.B-1 considering the uncertified photostat copy of the registration extract of the sale deed to be inadmissible even as secondary evidence. Even otherwise the absence of any explanation by R.W.2 as to why he did not produce the original sale deed was also taken adverse note of and while noting the inconsistencies in the claims of R.W.1 about the real value of the land, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the land at Rs.70,000/- per acre, as originally fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer along with all the attendant statutory benefits. 7. The claimant is before this Court with this appeal contending that the land with great potentiality in view of the location, fitness for raising commercial crops, nearness to housing colonies, location on the arterial road and the consistent growth of Nandyal Town should have been appropriately assessed for arriving at the real market value at the relevant time and Ex.B-1 should not have been discarded on surmises. Claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in this appeal, the claimant desired the impugned Award to be accordingly revised. 8. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board got itself impleaded as third respondent in this appeal in view of its subsequent acquisition of this land from the Municipality along with the other lands acquired under the same notification. 9. Heard Sri R.Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant. 10. The point for consideration is as to what was the probablised market value of the land acquired by the time of the notification under Section 4(1)? 11. POINT:- The Award-Ex.A-1 showed that the sales statistics relating to 183 sales transactions during the period of three years preceding the notification under Section 4(1) relating to Nandyal and Noonepalli villages were referred to for arriving at the market value and admittedly, Nandyal and Noonepalli are adjoining villages within the municipal limits of Nandyal. The Land Acquisition Officer in the Award noted that the lands were acquired for purposes of formation of 80 feet road and construction of a housing complex under the centrally sponsored scheme, which were inspected by him on 11-07-1986. He found category No.1 lands to be adjacent to well developed housing colonies with good potentiality as house sites while category No.2 lands were classified by him to be requiring reclamation for acquiring such potentiality. Category No.3 lands by the side of a canal were found liable for inundation during rainy season and the Land Acquisition Officer made a detailed analysis of the sales transactions, discarded those transactions in which the parties undervalued the sales to avoid stamp duty and distinguished transactions which were overvalued to get higher rates. Transactions concerning very small extents were also not taken into account and the Land Acquisition Officer found that sales at item Nos.51, 125, 141, 172 and 173 during the relevant period were genuine transactions relating to lands under acquisition at a rate of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per acre. Considering the time lag before notification after the transactions, the Land Acquisition Officer allowed an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- per acre for arriving at a market value of Rs.80,000/- per acre for category No.1, Rs.70,000/- per acre for category No.2 and Rs.50,000/- per acre for category No.3. However, in the light of the instructions of the Joint Collector, he re-assessed the compensation to be awarded and so far as this land is concerned falling under category No.2, the compensation is awarded at Rs.40,000/- per acre. 12. While the reasoning of the Joint Collector for considering the value of the lands to be less was rejected for reasons recorded by the Reference Court, which was not challenged by the respondents, the adoption of the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Officer by the Reference Court to enhance the compensation to Rs.70,000/- per acre also was not the subject of challenge by the respondents in any manner. 13. While the claimant desires that the sales at items 46 and 49 of Ex.A-1 should have been relied on, the Land Acquisition Officer found the transactions to be not open to reliance due to the inflated value by the parties to get higher rates and the impressions of the Land Acquisition Officer on a personal inspection of the lands and his conclusions with reference to the whole body of sale statistics available with him cannot be lightly brushed aside in this regard. 14. Strong reliance is sought to be placed on the evidence of R.W.2 and Ex.B-1 but R.W.2 himself did not construct any house in Ex.B-1 plot, which is in N.G.O’s colony. While N.G.O’s colony was fully developed with houses and streets and is adjacent to Koilkuntla- Atmakur road, the evidence of R.W.3-the Municipal Surveyor shows that the acquired land is an uncultivable dry land with no road facility and is in a slum area. R.W.3 is a public servant and has no personal interest and there is no reason to discard his claims about the nature of location and utility of the land acquired. A reading together of the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 thus shows that the land sold under Ex.B-1 and the land acquired cannot be considered to bear any similarity in potentiality or value and therefore, even if Ex.B-1 were to be considered as admissible in evidence, the same could not have been made the basis for arriving at the market value of the land in question. 15. The Reference Court analysed the evidence on record in great detail and to differ from the reasoning of the Reference Court, there are no strong reasons. The very purchase of half of the acquired land by the Housing Board in 1990 at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre suggests the justifiability of the value originally fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and later, adopted by the Reference Court. Both the Housing Board and the Municipality would not have transacted in respect of the land at any great deviation from the then prevailing market value in 1990 and if the land was worth Rs.1,00,000/- in 1990, taking into account the decrease in value of the rupee and increase in inflation in between, the value fixed at Rs.70,000/- per acre as on the date of Section 4(1) notification in 1983 cannot be considered untenable. 16. In the absence of any strong reasons to interfere with the original assessment of the Land Acquisition Officer adopted by the Reference Court, the appeal should fail. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 18th January, 2011 AMD