IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT Nos.1605, 1606 AND 1656 OF 1999 Between: Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Mudigonda … Appellant And Y.Padmavathi and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT Nos.1605, 1606 AND 1656 OF 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These three appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Mudigonda under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”), directed against the common order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in L.A.O.P.Nos.123, 124 and 125 of 1988, dated 24.02.1999, are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. An extent of 12-00 acres of land in S.No.15/2 and 26/2 of Kamalapuram village was acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections, by publishing a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 03.05.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the necessary formalities by his award dated 25.03.1987 fixed the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, the claimants sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On receiving the reference in O.P.No.123 of 1988, which covers an extent of Ac.6- 00 cents in S.No.15/2 and O.P.Nos.124 and 125 of 1988, which covers an extent of Ac.3-00 cents each in S.No.26/2 and since the lands were acquired through the very same notification, all the three O.Ps., were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in L.A.O.P.No.123 of 1988. To prove the market value, claimant in O.P.No.123 of 1988 was examined as P.W.1 and claimant in O.P.No.124 of 1988 was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.A1-certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 25.01.1984 was marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and award was marked as Ex.R1. Under Ex.A1 an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas of land was sold on 25.01.1984 by the first claimant in L.A.O.P.No.125 of 1988 in favour of one Veera Brahma Chary at Rs.25,000/- per acre, in which the land sold was shown as survey No.15. P.W.2, who is the brother of executant of Ex.A1, has attested the original of Ex.A1, to whom no suggestion was made that the said sale deed was brought into existence by showing exhorbitant value of the land claiming more compensation. But suggestion was made to P.W.1, who is not the executant of the document. R.W.1 deposed that the land sold under Ex.A1 is located at low level where neem garden was there, but he has not stated that the said sale transaction under Ex.A1 was brought into existence in anticipation of the acquisition nor any evidence was let in by the Land Acquisition Officer that the acquisition proposals were initiated much prior to the execution of the document Ex.A1. In the absence of same, when the sale deed under Ex.A1 was two years three months prior to issuance of the notification, it cannot be stated that the claimants were aware of the proposals for acquiring the said lands for the purpose of providing house sites. Therefore, the trial Court rightly taken into consideration the value reflected in Ex.A1 as a comparable sale for fixation of the market value. But since it is only half acre of land where neem trees were existed, fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre. In fact the claimants are entitled to 10% escalation for two years, but the same has not been taken into consideration. The claimants having not satisfied with the enhancement have not preferred any cross appeal. No infirmity is discernable with the procedure adopted by the trial Court in relying upon Ex.A1 and fixation of the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre, in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the appeal suits are dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th April 2010 lmv