IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH [29TH] 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.2759 of 2000 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Land Acquisition Officer, Tashildar, Andole … Appellant And: B. Venkat Krishna Reddy … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2759 of 2000 JUDGMENT: [per AGR, J] Government, through the Land Acquisition Officer-Tahsildar, Andole, preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation by the Subordinate Judge, Medak in OP No.67 of 1985 dated 16.02.1989. 2. This appeal is pending for the last 21 years. It was filed in February 1990 with a condone delay application and it was numbered in the year 2000. The record discloses that CMP No.14113 of 1990 was filed to condone the delay of 155 days in representing the appeal and CMP No.2865 of 1991 was filed to condone the delay of 242 days in presenting the appeal. Delay in representing the appeal was condoned on 18-01-1991 even without serving notice on the respondent. Delay in preferring the appeal was condoned on 09-06-2000 after service of notice on the respondent on 17-01-1998. 3. Even in the appeal, no steps were taken to serve the respondent. The acquisition is of the year 1981. As of now, 29 years have elapsed. We do not want to prolong the disposal of the appeal for want of service on the respondent. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for appeals for the appellant-State. 5. An extent of Ac.6.06 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.237, 238, 266 of Dhanoora village belonging to the respondent-claimant was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections by publishing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 25.02.1981. The claimant appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the notices in the award proceedings claiming compensation at Rs.10/- per square yard and Rs.5,000/- for stone wall, Rs.1,000/- each for tamarind trees, Rs.500/- each to the neem trees. But the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 30.10.1981 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,500/- per acre. The claimant on receiving the amount under protest filed application under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter to the civil Court for due determination of the market value and on being reference made to the civil Court, the claimant filed claim statement seeking compensation of Rs.10/- per square yard. 6. To prove the inadequacy of the compensation, the claimant examined himself as PW.1, apart from examining two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and original private sale deed dated 15.02.1980 respectively. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 award dated 30.10.1981 was marked. 7. PW.1, who is the claimant, stated that the acquired land is having all potentialities to be converted as house sites and he used to raise paddy, maize, chilly crops, vegetables and tobacco in the acquired land and the said land is adjacent to the village. In order to safeguard the land, he constructed a compound wall with stones, having three tamarind trees and two neem trees and the Government had not paid compensation for trees and wall. He further deposed that the village is well developed village and having all facilities like banks, electricity and water supply; that the population as on the date of the acquisition was ranging from 4000 to 5000; that the acquired lands are nearer to the junction which leads from Kothapally to Jogipet, Takmal to Jogipet; that the acquired lands are abutting the PWD road and at the time of notification, the market value of the land is not less than Rs.10/- to Rs.12/- per square yard. He further testified that adjacent to the acquired land, one Ernala Shankaraiah sold the land under private sale deed at Rs.10/- per square yard in December 1980. 8. PW.2, who is resident of Dhanura village, also deposed that about seven or eight years back the market value was Rs.10/- to Rs.12/- per square yard. He further deposed that the market value, as on the date of his deposition, was Rs.20/- to Rs.25/- per square yard and he purchased 121 square yards from PW.1 about nine years back at Rs.10/- per square yard and constructed a house over it. Ex.A.1 is the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat and no number was given to the house, as the revision had not taken place by the Gram Panchayat. Ex.A.2 is the original private sale deed on stamp paper dated 15.02.1980 showing that he purchased the land at Rs.10/- per square yard, duly attested by the village elders. 9. PW.3, who is also resident of Dhanura village, deposed that he is one of the attestors to the transaction held between PWs.1 and 2, where PW.2 purchased 121 square yards from PW.1 for Rs.10/- per square yard in his presence and the entire consideration was paid in his presence. 10. No contra evidence has been adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that the market value fixed by him at Rs.2500/- as just and reasonable compensation, considering the sales statistics prevalent as on that date. The evidence adduced further shows that the acquired land is situate near the village, abutting the PWD road and bus stand. The fact that the claimant used to raise commercial crops in the acquired land and in order to safe guard the said land, he also constructed a compound wall, is not at all rebutted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, his evidence as to the potentiality of the acquired land situate on PWD road junction and near the bus stand was taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. The reference Court, after taking into consideration the genuine sale transaction under Exs.A-1 and A.2 and after giving necessary deductions, fixed the market value at Rs.6/- per square yard, which in all respects reflects the true market value prevalent as on the date of notification. Further, the evidence adduced by the parties also shows that except the acquired land, there is no other land available for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the village. If that be the case, fixation of compensation at Rs.29,040/- per acre (at Rs.6/- per square yard) is a reasonable compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. There are no merits in the appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.04.2010 BSS/LRKM