THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1502 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Honourable Sri Justice G.V. Seethapathy) This appeal is filed against the order dated 27.11.1990 passed in O.P.No.2 of 1989 by the Subordinate Judge, Jagtial, wherein the reference Court enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre, each well at Rs.15,000/- and the tamarind tree at Rs.1,000/-, along with all statutory benefits. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. The Government acquired an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas of land in Rangapur village, comprising of Ac.0.11 guntas in S.No.240, Ac.0.30 guntas in S.No.241 and Ac.1.10 guntas in S.No.242 for the purpose of providing house sites to the Harijans, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), which was published in A.P. Gazette on 11.01.1985. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 9.01.1987 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,200/- per acre, for the well in S.No.241 at Rs.3,500/-, for the well in S.N.242 at Rs.6,800/-, and for the tamarind tree in S.No.242 at Rs.200/-. Being not satisfied with the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the reference was made to the civil Court. Before the reference Court, in support of their claim for enhancement, on behalf of the claimants, the second claimant was examined himself as PW.1. He also examined four other witnesses as PWs.2 to 5 and marked Ex.A.1-original registered sale deed dated 7.09.1987. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medipalli was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 petitions filed under Section 18 of the Act, and Ex.B.3-award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, were marked. Ex.C.1- Commissioner Warrant, and Ex.C.2-Commissioner report filed by PW.5-Advocate Commissioner, were also marked by the Court. The reference Court, on consideration of the evidence available on record, enhanced the market value and fixed the same as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal. PW.1, who is claimant No.2, testified that he used to raise chillies, turmeric and maize crops and was getting a net income of Rs.10,000/- from the land. According to him the market value of the acquired land was Rs.1200/- per gunta. He relied upon Ex.A.1-sale deed dated 7.09.1987 under which one Alladi Kistaiah sold 15 guntas in S.No.307 and 15 guntas in S.No.312, in all 30 guntas of land for Rs.18,000/-, which comes to Rs.24,000/- per acre. The said sale deed dated 7.09.1987, being post notification transaction entered into two years subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the reference Court has rightly not placed any reliance thereon. The reference Court discussed the sale transactions, which were referred to in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value. It is not disputed that the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to sale items 16 to 19 in Ex.B.3-Award. Under Sale item 16, Ac.0.11 guntas of land was sold for Rs.6,700/-, which comes to Rs.23,364/- per acre and under sale item Nos.17 to 19 similar extents of land was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.49,333/-, Rs.26,666/-, and Rs.26,000/- respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, ignored the said transactions on the ground that they are all relating to meagre extents. It is to be noted that the sale transactions covered by item Nos.16 to 19 as referred to above in the award are pertaining to the land, which is in the vicinity of the acquired land. Even the acquired lands under the present notification are also small extents of Ac.0.11 guntas, Ac.0.09 guntas and Ac.1.10 guntas spread over in three different survey numbers. The land is acquired for the purpose of house sites, which is indicative of high potential value of the land and within the proximity of the village. Under those circumstances, since the acquired land is similar to the land covered by the sale items 16 to 19 and is having a similar potentiality, the Land Acquisition Officer is not justified in ignoring them merely on the ground that they are all small extents. In fact, the sale items 16 to 19 were in respect of the transactions, which took place more than a year prior to the publication of Section 4 (1) notification. The reference Court has therefore rightly taken the said sale items 16 to 19 referred to in the award into consideration, which showed the market value at more than Rs.23,000/- per acre, and held that the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.5200/- is inadequate having regard to the nature of the land, its potentiality for being used as house sites, the purpose for which those lands were acquired and its proximity to the village Abadi. The reference Court was also of the view that the sale items referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award itself in respect of the lands in the same vicinity show the market value of more than Rs.23,000/- per acre. Hence, the market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre is neither excessive nor unreasonable. Similarly, the reference Court relying upon the report under Ex.C.2 of PW.5-the Advocate Commissioner and the certificates issued by the Junior Engineer, who assisted PW.5 in execution of warrant, fixed the market value of the two wells at Rs.15,000/- each and the same also does not call for interference by this Court as the said value is based on the proper appreciation of the material made available on record. Similarly, the value fixed for the Tamarind tree at Rs.1000/- does not also call for any interference. In the circumstances, it is held that the enhancement ordered by the reference Court with all the statutory benefits in respect of the acquired lands, is not liable to be interfered with and there are no merits in the appeal. In the result the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) _____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J.) 21st April, 2010 Js.