HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO A.S. No. 771 OF 2002 And CROSS OBJECTIONS BETWEEN The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Nuzvid. …Appellant/Respondent And Paleti Ramachanraraja rao ….Respondent/Cross- Objector/claimant HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO A.S. No. 771 OF 2002 And CROSS OBJECTIONS JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, Nagarjuna Sagar project, Nuzvid, preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, questioning the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2001 passed in OP.No. 24 of 1991, whereby the Reference Court answered the reference made under Section 18 of the Act by enhancing the compensation to Rs.13,000/- per acre. On the other hand, the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre, filed cross objections. The land to an extent of Ac. 1.82 cents with 29 mango trees of about two years age in R.S.No. 82/2, belonging to the claimant, situated in Surarampalli village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Surampalli minor-II canal from K.M.0.30 to 2.768 by issuing notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 on 17.10.1988. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, after completing the due and necessary formalities, proceeded to ﬁx the market value of the land acquired at Rs.500/- per acre as on 01-07-1953 and Rs.13,000/- per acre on the date of Section 4(1) notiﬁcation and, however, as the market value of the land as on 1.7.1953 was less, he determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.500/- per acre as per the provisions of the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of land) Act 32 of 1956.The LAO also awarded additional market value and 30% solatium besides interest. An amount of Rs.1,218/- was also awarded towards the value of the mango trees at the rate of Rs.42/- per each tree. Dissatisﬁed with the said compensation, the respondent/claimant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming higher compensation for the acquired land on the ground that the market value existing as on the date of 4(1) notiﬁcation ought to have been ﬁxed. On such reference, the Reference Court registered the reference as OP.No. 24 of 1991. In order to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation, the claimant examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. On the other hand, in order to dislodge the claim of the claimant and to establish the market value fixed and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer as adequate, reasonable and suﬃcient, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B 3 were marked on his behalf. The Reference Court, on hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, enhanced and ﬁxed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.13,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeal is preferred. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The learned Government Pleader contended that there is absolutely no evidence to support the award of the Civil Court with reference to the ﬁxation of the market value to the land acquired and that the lower court without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective, ﬁxed the market value of the land acquired at Rs.13,000/- per acre. He further submitted that the Reference Court rightly discarded Exs.A.1 and A.2 as they are not comparable sales. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant/cross-objector submitted that the market value ﬁxed by the Reference Court is not proper and not based on the appreciation evidence on record. The Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration Exs.A.1 and A.2 while ﬁxing the market value as they are boneﬁde, comparable and representative sales having took place just four and eight months respectively prior to the issuance of the 4(1) notiﬁcation. He further submitted that the Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the genuine sales and hence prayed for enhancement of the market value to Rs.40,000/- per acre. P.W.1 deposed that the acquired land is a dry land in which he was used to raise ground nut crop, dry corps etc., and there were 29 mango trees of about two years age. The aforesaid evidence of p.W.1 was not challenged in his cross examination. P.W.2 also supported the evidence of P.W.1 and his evidence was also not challenged in his cross examination. There was also no rebuttal evidence forthcoming from the side of R.W.1. Ex.A.1 is the sale deed dated 20.6.1987 whereunder an extent of Ac.1.02 cents of land in RS.No. 245 of Surampally village was sold at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per acre. P.W.2 was examined to prove the same. Ex.A.2 is the sale deed dated 27.2.1988 whereunder an extent of 49 cents in RS.No. 218 of Surampally village was sold for Rs.49,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. No person connected to the said sale was examined. However, it is to be noted that the Court can consider the certiﬁed copies of the sale deed ﬁled before it though no person connected with the document is examined. Hence, it was the case of the claimant/corss objector that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the comparable and representative sale transactions and they can at best be taken into consideration for ﬁxation of the market value. of the land acquired. In the year 1987 the land adjacent to the acquired land was sold at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per acre under Ex.A.1 and eight months after Exs.A.1 sale transaction took place whereunder the land situated in the same village was sold at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Both the lands under Exs.A1 andA.2 and the acquired lands are similar in advantages, situated in the same village. Even R.W.1 admitted that the distance between the acquired land and the lands covered under Esxs.A.1 and A.2 transactions is about 2 to 3 furlongs. Normally the agriculturists sold the agricultural lands reﬂecting true market value. Under Ex.A.2, 49 cents of land was sold for Rs.49,000/- which works out to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Even a sum of 50% is deducted towards sale consideration, the same will works out to Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is now fairly well settled that the highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by the parties can be preferred than the rest of the other for ﬁxation of the market value of the acquired land, and unless there are contradict circumstances and reasons, the same cannot be discarded. Further, no third party will pay high stamp duty for registration purposes at Rs.49,000/- to help the claimants. Even the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and the Reference Court have not discussed as to why they discarded Exs.A.1 and A.2 sale transactions, except saying that prices were artiﬁcially boosted for getting higher compensation. This ﬁnding of both the authorities below is not sustainable. In that view of the matter and for the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale transactions took place under Exs.A.1 and A.2 are comparative and representative sales and they can at best be taken for ﬁxation of the market value of the land acquired in the present matter. In that view of the matter, we ﬁx the market value of the acquired land as claimed by the claimant in the cross objections at Rs.40,000/- per acre. The claimant is entitled all salutatory beneﬁts as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India ((2001 SC 3516). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed the Cross-Objections preferred by the Claimant are allowed. No order as to costs. --------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date: 10--06-2010. Msnr.