ZTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.759 OF 1998 Dated. 04-2-2011 Between: Ch.Suryakantham wife of Surya Rao …Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Rajahmundry ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.759 OF 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.37 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram by the claimant for further enhancement of the value of the acquired land to Rs.80,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.1.26 cents of land in Rs.No.641/3-C in the village of Chellur was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites and an award enquiry was conducted and award was passed on 31-03-1987 and fixed the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. The claimant was not satisfied with the market value and hence a reference was made to the Court. The claimant contended that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.1 lakh and even if it is sold as house plots, it will be about Rs.30/- to Rs.40/- per square yard and consequently he is entitled for enhancement. On behalf of the claimant, PW.1 was examined who is the son of the claimant and no documents were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, RW.1 was examined. After considering the evidence on record the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the award and aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the claimant is entitled for the enhancement if any? (2) Whether the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? (3) To what relief? POINTS: There is no dispute about the fact that the claimant having sought reference to the court for determination of the market value is in the position of the plaintiff and all the material has to be produced before the court to show that he is entitled for further enhancement of the market value. No single document is filed on behalf of the claimant. The evidence of PW.1 shows that commercial crops and sugar cane was raised and the market value of the acquired land was Rs.90,000/- and in the year 1982 Ac.0.50 cents of land was sold for Rs.50,000/- to Anantha Lakshmi and Satyavathi which was reflected in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. RW.1 in the cross examination admitted the sale referred to by PW.1 but he was generous in suggesting that compensation has to be enhanced to Rs.90,000/-. The learned Government Pleader relied upon a judgment in O.P.No.48 of 1986 where for a similar land acquired the same court has fixed the compensation at Rs.45,000/-. The lower court found that the registration extract of the sale deed dated 08-11-1982 is not filed. Even the court also found that the land acquired under the present award is quite different from the land acquired under Ex.B-1. Merely because RW.1 accepts the evidence of PW.1 without there being any material to support it, it does not give any proof in support of the claim of the petitioner. RW.1 is not the Land Acquisition Officer and he has no knowledge about the award proceedings. He was only a Senior Assistant in the M.R.O’s Office. Therefore, such admissions will not bind any party in the absence of any tangible and acceptable evidence about the market value. It has to be stated that the claimant has utterly failed to prove the enhancement for which he claimed and the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly rejected the claim for enhancement. Therefore, the order of the lower court does not call for interference. Accordingly the Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 04-2-2011 TSNR