HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.1663 of 2000 28-07-2010 Between: Kodavati Venkata Sarveswara Rao ………Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.1663 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per NA,J) This is an appeal filed by the claimants against the Land Acquisition O.P.No.67 of 1985, dated 21-03-2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the Award No.12 of 1979, dated 02-11-1979 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) 2. The land of the appellants measuring a total extent of Ac.1.75 cents situated in Sy. No.123-1A and 123/6 of Tottaramudi village of Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance of draft Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 19-05-1977. The Land Acquisition Officer based on Ex.A-2, sale deed, dated 18-02-1975 (equivalent to Ex.B-1), awarded the compensation @ Rs.16,000/- per acre. In the said award, it was noted that the nature of the land was coconut garden. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and the said reference was registered as O.P.No.67 of 1985. 3. In the said O.P., the appellant filed claim petition and sought for compensation @ Rs.1.00 lakh per acre relying on Ex.A-1, sale deed, dated 26-07-1975. The said sale deed covers an extent of Ac.0.05 cents situated in Sy No.133/1 of the same village which comes to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Based on Ex.A-1 and the other oral and documentary evidence, the reference Court earlier enhanced the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Against which, the claimants filed appeal in A.S.No.30 of 1989 seeking more compensation and the Land Acquisition Officer also preferred another appeal A.S.No.3146 of 1990 challenging the very enhancement. Both the appeals were disposed of, remanding the matter to the reference Court by order dated 30-07-1999 for reconsideration. On such remand, the matter was reconsidered by the reference Court. The parties were also allowed to adduce further evidence. The claimants further examined P.W.6 to 10 and marked Ex.X-1, dated 01-05-1957. No further evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. Exs.C-1 to C-4 were marked through the Commissioner. The reference Court discarded the sale deed, Ex.A-1 and relying on Ex.A-2, which is equivalent to Ex.B-1, confirmed the award and declined to enhance compensation. Against which, the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the both the parties. 5. The only point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Ex.A-1 is a relevant document and Reference Court discarded the said document on untenable grounds. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals would submit that Ex.A-1 document relates to the land situated in Sy. No.133/1, whereas the land acquired is situated in Sy. Nos.123/1A and 123/6, hence, Ex.A-1 is not a comparable document. He would, therefore, submit that the reference Court was right in taking into consideration Ex.A-2, sale deed, which relates to a sale transaction in respect of land in the same Sy. No.123/3. 8. It may be mentioned that the sale transaction under Ex.A-1 though relates to the land in Sy. No.133/1, it is in the evidence of P.W.2 that the said land is situated just 100 yards away from the acquired land. The land in Ex.A-1 is a part and parcel of the main village Kodavativari Lanka. The land covered by Ex.A-1 was described as zeroiti meraka dry but not a coconut garden, whereas the land acquired is admittedly a coconut garden. The reference Court however declined to accept Ex.A-1 on the ground that P.W.6, who was examined in support of Ex.A-1, stated that the land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents covered by Ex.A-1 was purchased at Rs.3,800/-, whereas the document disclosed that to avoid the registration expenses, the sale consideration was shown only as Rs.1500/-. 9. It may be true that the statement of P.W.6 that the land was purchased at Rs.3800/- is not correct, but however, the document itself discloses that the sale consideration was Rs.1500/- in respect of an extent of Ac.0.05 cents which comes to Rs.30,000/- per acre. As noted above, admittedly the land covered by Ex.A-1 is situated just 100 yards away from the acquired land and it is dated 26-07-1975 i.e. five months later to Ex.A-2 document dated 18-02-1975. The land covered by Ex.A-1 is Ac.0.05 cents whereas the land covered by Ex.A-2 is only Ac.0.02 ½ cents. We are of the view that the reasons assigned by the reference Court for discarding Ex.A-1 are not convincing and admittedly the land acquired is a coconut garden situated only 100 yards away from the land covered by Ex.A-1. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Ex.A-1 sale deed is a relevant document and on the basis of the said document, the market value would be Rs.30,000/- per acre. 10. Though the claimants seeking compensation based on the capitalization method, the reference Court rightly rejected the said adoption of capitalization method as admittedly there are sale transactions covering the similar lands. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the enhanced compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre and it was also withdrawn by the claimants. 11. We, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre and the award in O.P. is accordingly modified. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Dated: 28-07-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI KVR