IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 1861, 1873, 2053 and 2054 OF 1998 Between: K.Peda Appi Reddy, Jaggayyapet Tq. Appellant AND The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar, L.A.Unit-I, Railways, Nandigama Respondent The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) Since similar questions arise for consideration in these four appeals, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. These appeals are preferred by the appellants- claimants questioning the orders and decrees dated 27.02.1997 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O.P. Nos. 113 of 1984, 114 of 1984, 118 of 1984 and 121 of 1984 respectively. The subject lands of the appellants, situated in various survey numbers in Vetsavai village, Jaggayyapet Taluq, Krishna District are acquired for the formation of New Broad Gauge Railway line from Matamarri to Jaggayyapet. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) was published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette on 04.01.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per acre. The claimants filed protest petitions requesting to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of just compensation, and the reference Court by the impugned order dated 27.02.2007, confirmed and upheld the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the appellants contending that the lands are very potential lands, that they used to get income of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per acre per annum by raising the commercial crops, like chillies, paddy etc., The appellants had not filed any documentary evidence with regard to the income derived from the commercial crops said to have been raised by them. But, they had relied only on Exs.A.1 and A.2, sale deeds, and Ex.A.3 the rate relating to the chillies, but no evidence was filed by them with regard to the produce and the sale of the chilly. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer considered various sale transactions during the course of the award, which reflect that the lands were sold during the relevant period @ Rs.5,000/- or less than Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the same value was taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.5,000/- per acre, which is the market value at the relevant point of time, though Ex.A.1 sale deed was rejected on the ground that the persons connected with Ex.A.1 were not examined. We are of the opinion that as the sale deed covered by Ex.A.1 is just before one month prior to the 4(1) Notification the Court below rightly held that the sale transaction was brought into existence to boost up the value of the same and therefore, no one connected to the said sale transaction was examined. In view of the same, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. Consequently, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao Dt.24th November, 2011 PNV