THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S No.1500 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The Land Acquisition Officer-Special Deputy Collector, Yeleru Left Main Canal, Anakapalli, filed this appeal challenging the order, dated 20.04.1995, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram, in O.P.No.366 of 1988. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Government of A.P. acquired land admeasuring Ac.6.53 cents situated in Bethapudi village, belonging to the claimants, for formation of the reservoir across Sarada River near Raiwada village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 25.5.1988 fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. On reference being made, the claimants appeared before the Court below and filed claim statements claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000/-per acre in addition to the other benefits, on the ground that they used to raise paddy and sugarcane in the land in question and getting annual income of Rs.15,000/- per acre. Before the Court below, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 document was marked. The Court below while placing reliance on Ex.A1 transaction that took place on 17.01.1984 viz., two and half years prior to the 4(1) notification of the lands in question and taking into consideration 12% as the rate of increase per acre per year, allowed the O.P. with costs enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.31,200/- per acre and granting all the benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Government. Heard and perused the material available on record. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has duly taken note of transactions that had taken place within a period of three years prior to issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and fixed the correct market value and that Ex.A1 transaction was brought into existence only to claim higher compensation and the Court below ought not to have taken such transaction as a comparable sale. Therefore, she prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants opposed the said contentions on the ground that Ex.A1 is a genuine transaction and the trial Court rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. On perusal of the material on record, it is clear from the evidence of R.W.1-Land Acquisition Officer that he had not specifically taken into consideration any sale transaction and not examined the concerned persons relating to the sale transactions on which basis he awarded the compensation. While fixing the market value of Rs.5,000/- as reasonable compensation in view of the sale items 4,8 and 1/83, R.W.1 did not assign any reasons for not considering the sale transactions among the connected sale transactions which shows that the value of some of the lands was Rs.25,000/- and Rs.28,000/- and odd. From the material, it is clear that the land covered under Ex.A1 was very nearer to the present acquired land viz., two or three plots intervene between Ex.A1 and the present acquired lands. The evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 discloses that the market value of the land covered under Ex.A1 is at Rs.24,000/- per acre. P.W.4 deposed that at Bethapudi village, he has got Rs.4.00 of land, and Sarada river and one gedda were sources of water and that the lands of Bethapudi and Boddapadu are situated side by side. As there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 remained unrebutted. In a case of this nature, it is desirable to take into consideration the documentary evidence pertaining to value of the lands acquired in the same village. Admittedly, the lands covered by Ex.A1 are situated very nearer to the lands acquired in the present case. Further, nothing adverse was pointed out between the lands covered under Ex.A1 and the present acquired lands with regard to fertility, potentiality and nature. Further, the genuineness of the transaction under Ex.A1 is not disputed. Therefore, it can be taken as a comparable sale for the purpose of determining the market value. Considering all the above aspects, the Court below awarded the compensation. Therefore, we feel that the Court below has rightly adjudicated the matter and that the compensation fixed by the Court below does not warrant any interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ Justice N.V. Ramana _____________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao Date: 25.7.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO AS No.1500 OF 2000 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 25.7.2011