HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.557 OF 2006 DATED:16-09-2009 BETWEEN: Meka Venkata Samrajyalakshmi & Others …Appellants AND Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, NSP, Nuzvid. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S. No.557 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is preferred by the claimants seeking further enhancement of market value of the acquired land awarded by the Senior Civil Judge in L.A.O.P.No.39 of 1990, dated 14.6.2004. An extent of Ac.5.10 cents of land belonging to the claimants-appellants situated in R.S.No.450/3 of Nuzvid was acquired by Government for the purpose of construction of Nagarjuna Sagar Project Camp Colony by publishing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) on 4.3.1978 and possession was taken on 24.6.1976, but according to Land Acquisition Officer, it was taken on 1.1.1978. However, questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1st claimant filed W.P.No.1874 of 1981 before this Court and this Court after recording a finding that in the counter filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it was not stated that award has been finalized and not been passed, and in view of the inordinate delay of 10 years, the notification was quashed by order dated 24.3.1988. On quashing the said notification, a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 2.7.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed an award on 20.6.1989 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5/- per sq.yd. as per the provisions laid down in Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956. On passing the award, he referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 30(1) of the Act as there was a dispute with regard to the ownership between the rival claimants in O.P.No.70 of 1989, which was ended in compromise, according to which, the claimants are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation and on their request, the matter was referred to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the market value. In order to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of draft notification, the G.P.A. holder of claimants 1 and 2 was examined as P.W.1; one Nagabhushana Sastry was examined as P.W.2 and Jonnalagadda Subbarao was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. The reference Court by the impugned order, enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5/- to Rs.10/- per sq.yd. as against the claim of Rs.250/- claimed by the claimants, with all statutory benefits under Act 68 of 1984 only on the enhanced market value. Hence, the present appeal seeking further enhancement of market value of the acquired land. At the out set, we may point out that a reading of the entire impugned order passed by the reference Court does not indicate the reasons for arriving the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10/- per sq.yd. and the order was passed only extracting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and referring to various documents relied on by the parties. From a reading of the entire order, we could not understand as to what was passing in the mind of the reference Court in discarding the exhibits and evidence adduced by the parties or in coming to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs.10/- per sq.yd. for the acquired land. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals. The learned counsel for the appellants except reading the impugned order and making a submission that the appellants- claimants are restricting their claim to Rs.100/- per sq.yd. basing upon Ex.A.4 sale deed, is not in a position to point out the evidence adduced in that regard. Since the acquisition pertains to 1978, instead of remitting the matter to the reference Court, we ourselves gone through the record and evidence adduced by the parties. P.W.1, who is the son of 1st claimant and brother of claimants 2 and 3 deposed that the land in Sy.No.450/3 was acquired for the purpose of construction of Nagarjuna Sagar Canal quarters by publishing notification in 1986, but possession was taken on 24.6.1976. Except the acquired land, the claimants are not holding any other land and their holding is below the land Ceiling Act. The acquired land is situated in the heart of Nuzvid town and there are two cinema halls situated by the side of acquired land, and that there are shops to the south of acquired land. The locality is busy locality. Mijjapuram estate is towards east of the acquired land, which is worth Rs.50,00,000/-, and that N.S.P. office, Munsif Court and Sub-Court were situated at the time of acquisition. Ex.A.1 is the order in W.P.No.1874 of 1981; Ex.A.2 is the office copy of the notice issued by claimants; Ex.A.3 is the reply notice given by Assistant Government Pleader in which, Government admitted taking possession of land on 24.6.1976. He deposed that on 17.2.1976 Raja Atchuatayara sold site to Jonnalagadda Laxmi at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.yd. under original of Ex.A.4, which is at a distance of 10 yards from the acquired land in the same survey number. One GMV Apparao sold open land to L.I.C. at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.yd. on 29.2.1988 under the original of Ex.A.5 sale deed and the said site is in the same survey number and at a distance of 10 yards from the acquired land. Ex.A.6 is the sketch issued by Mandal Revenue Officer showing the well in the acquired land. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex.A.3-reply notice, Government did not admit about taking possession of acquired land in 1976. He denied the suggestion that the acquired land is not situated in busy locality. He also denied the suggestion that the acquired land is away from the land covered by Exs.A.4 and A.5 sale deeds and also denied that the land is acquired under the provisions of Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956. P.W.2, who worked as Higher Grade Assistant in L.I.C., Nuzvid, deposed that during his tenure L.I.C. purchased 2150 sq.yds. of site for construction of L.I.C. building at Nuzvid from VMC Aparao as bilmaktha Rs.4,94,370/- under Ex.A.5. In the cross-examination, he stated that he signed the original of Ex.A.5, and that the Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam was present at the time of original of Ex.A.5. He denied the suggestion that the acquired land and the site of Ex.A.5 are not comparable sites and also denied the suggestion that the vicinity is developed after the acquisition. P.W.3, the husband of vendee under Ex.A.4 sale deed deposed that he purchased 36 sq.yds. of house-site in the name of his wife on 17.2.1986 from Kaza Atchyutarao at Rs.250/- per sq.yd. under the original of Ex.A.4, and that the site purchased under Ex.A.4 is at a distance of 50 yards in the same survey number of acquired land towards north. He deposed that prior to the purchase of the site under Ex.A.4, he asked the claimants to sell their land at Rs.300/- per sq.yd, but they refused to sell the same and therefore, he was forced to purchase only 36 sq.yds. of site. He sold the site purchased under the original of Ex.A.4 sale deed at Rs.1,000/- per sq.yd. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from him that he had constructed a house in the year 1987 with three shops. R.W.1, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid deposed that the Government took possession of the acquired land on 1.1.1978 in view of urgency and the then Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5/- per sq.yd. by relying on provisions of Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 besides the sale deeds referred as item No.6 of 1951 and item No.11 of 1985. Ex.B.1 is the extract of registered sale deed dated 19.11.1951; Ex.B.2 is the award copy No.1/1989-90, dated 20.6.1989; and Ex.B.3 is the combined sketch showing the vicinity of acquired land and other lands. He admitted in the cross-examination that the acquired land is situated in Nuzvid town which is facing southern side of residential locality and also admitted that by the side of acquired land, towards east, Mirjapur Zamindar Palace was in existence, and that by the date of acquisition, Sub-Court and Munsif Court were existing in the same palace besides the electricity department. He admitted that as per Ex.A.3, possession of the acquired land was taken over in 1976, buildings were constructed in 1977 and the acquisition proceedings were started in 1978. He had visited the site prior to giving evidence and there was a well situated in the acquired land and as per the award, no compensation was awarded for the compound wall and the well. He cannot say whether the acquired land and land covered by Ex.B.1 sale deed are similar, but he denied the suggestion that the land covered by Ex.B.1 is far away from acquired land. He stated that as per the record, the distance between the acquired land and the land covered by Ex.B.1 is at half a kilometer distance. He admitted that no additional compensation was awarded to the claimants from the date of taking possession. As seen from the above evidence, under Ex.A.4 sale deed, dated 17.2.1986, P.W.3 purchased an extent of 36 sq.yds. of house-site in the name of his wife at Rs.250/- per sq.yd. Record also discloses that under Ex.A.5, dated 29.2.1988 an extent of 2150 sq.yds. (Ac.0.45 cents) of site was purchased by Life Insurance Corporation 20 months after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.yd. Therefore, Exs.A.4 and A.5 sale deeds clearly discloses that the market value prevalent as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was Rs.250/- per sq.yd. for house plots. Even if half of the amount is deducted from Rs.250/- towards developmental charges such as providing the amenities and leveling the land etc., the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs.125/- per sq.yd. as on the date of notification i.e. 2.7.1986. The reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10/- per sq.yd. merely basing on sale item mentioned at serial No.10, whereunder, for the acquisition of land pertains to 1953, the market value was fixed at Rs.5/- per sq.yd. Therefore, fixation of the market value by the reference Court at Rs.10/- per sq.yd. does not reflect the true market value and is not based on evidence. It is well settled that the sale deeds referred by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award cannot be treated as an evidence unless the said sale deeds relied on in the award are marked and the contents are proved. Whereas, the claimants by exhibiting Exs.A4 and A.5 amply established that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is more than Rs.100/- per sq.yd. Having regard to the fact that the land under Ex.A.4 is a small extent of 36 sq.yds. and as the purchaser thereunder constructed shops in the said land, which amply establishes that the land is abutting the main road and the land interior to the main road would not fetch that rate, we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.125/- per sq.yd. Since the claimants are restricting their claim to Rs.100/- per sq.yd., after deducting Rs.10/- awarded by the reference Court, we confine the appeal only for enhancement of Rs.90/- per sq.yd. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.100/- per sq.yd. The claimants-appellants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the amended Act 68 of 1984 on the enhanced compensation. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 Tsr.