THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Appeal Suit No.1505 of 2000 Date : 19-10-2010 Between : Suryadevara Koteswara Rao .. Appellant and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanchikacharla, Krishna District. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Appeal Suit No.1505 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per VE,J.) The appellant is a claimant whose land of an extent of Ac.1.01 cent in Sy.No.104/1B situate in Kunikenapadu Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal of Krishna District was acquired pursuant to 4 (1) notification dated 20-06-1986 for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of Kunikenapadu Village and the Award No.2 of 1987 was passed on 28-03-1987 fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.22,500/- per acre. On a petition filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Reference Court in the said O.P.No.398 of 1987 based on the oral and documentary evidence enhanced the compensation from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed contending that the Court below ought to have placed reliance on Exs.A1 and A2. Admittedly, the date of 4 (1) notification is 20-06-1986, whereas Ex.A2 is subsequent to the 4(1) notification, which is dated 08-07-1986 and therefore the said sale transaction cannot be relied upon and the Court below rightly discarded Ex.A2. Insofar as Ex.A1 is concerned, though some reliance has been placed on Ex.A1 and though Ex.A1 relates to the sale transaction of Ac.0.05 cents for a sum of Rs.2,500/-, which comes to Rs.50,000/- per acre, but the Reference Court has taken into account the value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre and further deducted 1/4th out of it and thus fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Ex.A1 sale transaction is two years prior to the acquisition and Ex.A1 land is very nearer to the acquired land of the same village and therefore the Court below ought to have taken into account the sale consideration covered by Ex.A1 and deducted 1/3rd towards the development as admittedly the land is acquired for the house sites. We are of the opinion that whenever the land is acquired for the purpose of providing house sites, the land abutting the village will fetch more value than the agricultural fields which are situate at a considerable distance. Admittedly, Ex.A1 is very nearer to the acquired land and as the land covered by Ex.A1 is also small extent of Ac.0.05 cents and the lands acquired in the instant case are also for providing house sites and even if the plots are made in the acquired lands, the claimant, after deducting 1/3rd of the land towards the development, would have obtained at the same rate as that of Ex.A1. Therefore, we are of the opinion that if Ex.A1 is taken into consideration, 1/3rd of the same has to be deducted. If the market value is taken at the rate of Rs.50,000/- based on Ex.A1 and if 1/3rd is deducted, it comes to Rs.33,333/-. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Ex.A1 is two years prior to 4 (1) notification and that the claimant is entitled to 20% more, we are not inclined to consider the same, as Ex.A1 is covered by the small bit of Ac.0.05 cents of land. Therefore and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view of the entire evidence available on record, we fix the market value at Rs.33,300/- per acre. Thus, the market value fixed by the Reference Court is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.33,000/-. The claimant is also entitled for all consequential statutory benefits. The Appeal Suit is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19th October, 2010. skmr