IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR A.S.No.2317 of 1998 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry .. Appellant AND Dandamudi Satyanarayana and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per G. Bhavani Prasad, J) This appeal is directed against the award dated 16-4-1998 in O.P.No.82 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Acs.2.47 cents of land in Survey Nos.318/1A and 319 of Konthamuru village, Rajahmundry Taluk was acquired for the purpose of house sites and by Award No.21 of 1987 dated 24-6- 1987, the Land Acquisition Officer granted a total compensation of Rs.1,41,926-20ps. The protest of the claimant led to a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (fort short “the Act”) to the Civil Court and before the Civil Court, the claimants (original sole claimant having died and his legal representatives having been brought on record during the pendency of the reference) contended that the acquired land and the adjacent lands are fit for house sites even prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and a number of layouts existed in the vicinity even then. The adjacent plots were being sold at Rs.60/- per square yard and the compensation should have been granted on that classification and not as agricultural land. The claimants are entitled to a minimum compensation of Rs.40/- per square yard and the rejection of item-12 of the sales statistics by the Land Acquisition Officer was incorrect. 15 Palmyrah trees also existed in the land for which compensation has to be awarded at Rs.500/- per tree and subsequent interest was not granted at 9% p.a. as per the statute, which has to be rectified. There was no pleading in response from the Land Acquisition Officer before the reference Court. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7, B.1 and B.2. The reference Court rendered the impugned award referring to the rival contentions and the factual background and noted that Ex.A.4 sale deed dated 6-1-1986 covering 587 square yards in Sy.No.349 was at a rate of Rs.15/- per square yard. The reference Court also noted that PW.4 was examined to prove the same, while Ex.A.5 sale deed dated 5-3-1986 for 400 square yards in Sy.No.430 was at a rate of Rs.25/- per square yard to prove which the attestor- PW.5 was examined. Ex.A.5 noted as item-14 among the sales statistics in the award was opined by the reference Court to have not been considered for no reason and as Exs.A.4 and A.5 are comparable sales concerning the lands near the acquired lands, the request of the claimants for reliance on them was considered notwithstanding the opposition of the Land Acquisition Officer contending that the said items are far away from the acquired land. The reference Court further considered that there was absolutely no reason to consider Exs.A.4 and A.5 to be not genuine transactions and nothing was elicited to discredit Exs.A.4 and A.5 during the cross-examination of the witnesses concerned. Ex.B.2 sketch filed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself was relied on to conclude that Exs.A.4 and A.5 lands are very near to the acquired land. The reference Court was, therefore, of the opinion that the market value of the acquired land can be consequently fixed at Rs.20/- per square yard or Rs.96,800/- per acre. The reference Court then proceeded to deduct 40% of such value approximately towards the development charges to fix the market value at Rs.60,000/- per acre. The reference Court also refused to fix any compensation in respect of the trees. The statutory benefits were also consequently granted on the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court with this appeal again reiterating that Exs.A.4 and A.5 lands are far away from the acquired lands and not deducting the exact amount towards developmental charges from the market value was also not proper. Sri S.Md. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals reiterated the request for reversal of the impugned award by the reference Court, while Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the claimants defended the justification for the order of the reference Court. The point for consideration is whether the fixation of the market value by the reference Court is susceptible for any interference herein? The impugned order of the reference Court relying on Exs.A.4 and A.5 sales during the relevant time was based on two of the sales referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer himself among the sales statistics collected by him. While not relying on Exs.A.4 and A.5, even the Land Acquisition Officer did not assign any positive reasons for the same and he did not also state the said transactions to be not genuine. The reference Court found that the concerned persons were examined as PWs.4 and 5 and their credibility was not shaken by any circumstance elicited during cross-examination and the very near location of the lands covered by Exs.A.4 and A.5 to the acquired land is evident from Ex.B.2- combined sketch itself. The factual foundation for the conclusion by the reference Court is based on the material on record and the potentiality of the acquired land for use as house sites cannot be suspected under the circumstances. The reference Court had in fact been further conservative in not accepting the value of Rs.25/- per square yard fetched by Ex.A.5 in spite of finding the transaction to be comparable and even out of the value fixed on the basis of Rs.20/- per square yard, it has deducted more than the normal 1/3rd towards developmental charges by almost deducting 40% of the probable market value, the difference between the deduction of 40% at Rs.58,080/- and the actual deduction being less than Rs.2,000/- per acre. The reference Court rejected any claim for compensation in respect of trees solely based on the alleged admission of the 3rd claimant about his not claiming compensation in respect of the trees without even going into the existence or value of the trees and a close consideration of the evidence on record, thus, shows that there is no scope for any further reduction of compensation granted by the reference Court. The appeal should, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20-01-2011 Ksn