THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1572 OF 2001 Dated. 01 -12-2010 Between: Smt.Vemula Lachamma and others …Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1572 OF 2001 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir in O.P.No.24 of 1988 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ( for short “the Act”). The lands of the appellants were acquired to an extent of Ac.12.96 cents in Sy.Nos.245, 252 and 96 of Mallapuram village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 26-10-1987 fixing the market value at Rs.2,500/- per acre and as the claimants were not satisfied, the amount was received under protest and the claimants claimed that the market value of the required land is at Rs.25/- per square yard at the time of acquisition and it has further increased to Rs.50/- per square yard. Accordingly, the reference was made. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. After considering the evidence on record, The learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/-per acre and aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal claming compensation @ Rs.25/- per square yard. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is real and sustainable? (2) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement and if so to what amount? (a) To what relief? POINTS:- Since this being a reference for determination of market value at the instance of the claimants the burden is on them to prove the claim by substantiating with necessary documents and evidence. PW.1 is the son of claimant No.1 and according to him he was given General Power of Attorney ( Ex.A-1) by her and the land was acquired for construction of Colony for B.Cs and the land adjoins the village and costly dry crops are raised. The prevailing market value in the year 1983-1984 was Rs.12/- per square yard and it was in the increase. He relied upon the sale deeds (Exs.A-2 and A-3) where under one Malla Reddy sold 121 square yards for Rs.1450/- and again sold about 121 square yards under Ex.A-3 to one Chandraiah on 26-11-1984. According to him, the land was sold in the neighbourhood for house sites and houses were constructed. PW.2 was examined to prove the potentialities of the acquired land and also income from it. As against this evidence, RW.1 has spoken about the reasons for arriving at market value at Rs.2,500/- per acre. The lower court did not consider Exs.A-2 and A-3 but however found that the reasons given by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value at Rs.2,500/- is less. Evidently, except the sale deeds (Exs.A-2 and A-3) which were for small extents, there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the appellants to show the market value of the acquired lands. There is also no evidence of any potentialities of income from the acquired lands. There is no proof that any persons have constructed the houses and there is also no proof that any person was residing near the acquired lands. No person in the neighbourhood was examined though PW.2 claims that some people have constructed the houses. When evidently the extents of the acquired lands is Ac.12.96 cents the court cannot look into the sale transactions under Exs.A-2 and A-3 for small extents and that too which are very close to the time of acquisition and which might have been brought up having knowledge of the proposed acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer on the other hand has considered the statement and other statistics. The lower court taking into consideration and also keeping in view Exs.A-2 and A-3 and taking into notice the increase in the land value in the neighbourhood fixed the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre. The reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge are cogent and the appellants have failed to prove the potentialities or the market value as claimed by them and therefore there are no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the points are answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 01-12-2010 TSNR