HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO A.S. No. 864 OF 2002 And CROSS OBJECTIONS BETWEEN The Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer) Jagtial …Appellant/Referring Officer And Jakileti Anandha Rao ….Respondent/Cross- Objector/claimant HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO A.S. No. 864 OF 2002 And CROSS OBJECTIONS JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer-cum- Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jagtial, preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, questioning the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2001 in OP.No. 16 of 1995, whereby the Reference Court answered the reference made under Section 18 of the Act by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,000/- per acre to Rs.38,000/- per acre The land to an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas covered by Sy.No.433 belonging to the respondent/Claimant situated in Rajalingampet, hamlet of Govindaram village of Medipalli Mandal in Karimnagar district was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of Govindaram village by issuing draft notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act on 8- 1-1994. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, after completing the due and necessary formalities, ﬁxed the market value of the land acquired at Rs.5,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent civil Court, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. In the claim statement, he stated that the acquired land is situated in the vicinity of the Govindaram village limits; that the land acquired is suitable for house sites; it is abutting the road and that the compensation awarded by the LAO is very meagre, On such reference, the Reference Court registered the reference as OP.No.16 of 1995. In order to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation, the claimant examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On the other hand, in order to dislodge the claim of the claimant and to establish the market value ﬁxed and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer as adequate, reasonable and suﬃcient, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B 6 were marked on his behalf. The Reference Court, on hearing both sides and appreciating the material on record, enhanced and ﬁxed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.38,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeal is preferred. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant/cross-objector submitted that under Exs. A,1 registered sale deed dated 22.4.1990, an extent of 363 square yards of land in Sy.No. 433 of the very same village was sold at Rs.5,400/-, which works out to Rs.72,800/- per acre; that an extent of 484 Sq.yards of land in Sy.No. 433 was sold under the registered sale deed 6.4.1993 for Rs.14520/-, which works out to Rs.1,45,200/- per acre; that under Ex.A.10, one B.Vimala Bai through her GPA holder sold Ac.1.30 gunts of land in Sy.No.1 for Rs.31,600/- and that under Ex.A.11, dated 16.5.1984, one J.Kamalakar Rao sold Ac.1.07 gunts of land in Sy.No. 977 for Rs.31,725/- which wourks to Rs.27000/- per acre. Even if 10% escalation is added to the value of the land acquired, the same will be more than what is awarded by the LAO and Reference Court. Therefore, he submitted that the market value ﬁxed by the Reference Court is not proper and based on the appreciation evidence on record. The Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration Exs.A.1, A.10 and A.11 while ﬁxing the market value as they are boneﬁde, comparable and representative sales and hence prayed for enhancement of the market value to Rs.60,000/- per acre. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that Ac.5.00 of land was acquired from the very same Survey Number by issuing Section 4(1) notiﬁcation dated 28.4.1994, for which the Civil Court ﬁxed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre against Rs.5,000/-per acre ﬁxed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer in OP.No. 69 of 1988 and on appeal preferred by the Government, this Court while conﬁrming the market value ﬁxed by the Reference Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre dismissed the appeal. He further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to support the award of the Civil Court with reference to the ﬁxation of the market value to the land acquired, by adding 10% escalation and that the lower court without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective, erroneously ﬁxed the market value at Rs.38,000/- per acre and therefore, the same needs to be set aside. We perused the record and gave our anxious considerations to the submission of the learned Counsel on either side. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer collected as many as six sale transactions held within the period of three years preceding the issuance of Section 4(1) Notiﬁcation. He however discarded some of them and ultimately he relied on sale item No.1 wherein Ac.0.32 guntas of land in Sy.no. 343/A was sold vide document dated 15.3.1991 for Rs.4,000/- and the same works out to Rs.5,000/- per acre. Inasmuch as the land covered under sale item no.1 is situated very near to the land acquired, and as both are similar by nature, fertility, and situated very close to the Rajalingampet village, the LAO preferred the same as basis for ﬁxation of the market value of the land acquired and accordingly he fixed the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 discloses that there was a road leading from Gambeerpur to Rajalingampet passing through the middle of the land in Sy.No. 433 dividing the entire extent of the land into two portions and the land situated on one side was previously acquired the Government about nine years back and the remaining land in the same survey number situated on the other side of the road was again acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the villagers. He deposed that under Ex. A.1 registered slae deed dated 22.4.1990, he sold 363 square yards of his land in Sy.No. 433 for a consideration of Rs.5,460/- to one Baoibathula Dharmapuri , which works out to Rs.72,000/- per acre. He deposed that under a registered sale deed dated 6.4.1993, he sold 484 square yards of land in the very same survey number to one Nerella Rajam for Rs.14,520/-, which works out to Rs.1,45,200/- per acre. These two transactions took place within three years preceding the issuance of Section 4(1) notiﬁcation. He deposed that the Government acquired Ac.5.00 of land belonging to one V.Muralidhar Rao in the year 1986 under Ex.A.7 award dated 23.9.1986 ﬁxing the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre and the same was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per acre on a reference being sought for. P.W.2 an attestor and the purchaser of the land under Exs.A.1 and A.2, supported the evidence of P.W.1 as he paid the sale consideration to his seller, P.W.1. There is no dispute with regard to the earlier acquisition made by the government in the very same survey number i.e. 433 of Rajalingampet village and the market value ﬁxed and conﬁrmed by this Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre and the same is evident from Exs.A.3,A.4, A7, A8 and A9. Further, it is evident that, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer discarded the sale transactions took place vide Exs.A.1 and A.2 as they are fetching very high value comparing to the value of the other lands in the vicinity of other survey numbers. It is not in dispute that the land sold under Exs. A.1 is in the vicinity of the acquired land. P.W.1 deposed that the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was being sold at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre during the year 1983 and Rs.27,000/- per acre in the year 1985 and Rs.52,00/- per acre in the year 1990. P.W.1 further relied on Ex.A.10 registered sale deed dated 19.1.1983 wherein an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.1 was sold at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre and under Ex.A.11 registered sale deed dated 16.5.1984, an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas of land in Sy.No. 977 at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per acre. The evidence of P.W.2 supported the evidence of P.W.1. In the previsious occasion, the Government acquired Ac.5.00 of land in the very same Sy.No. 433 situated in Rajalingampally village vide Section 4(1) notiﬁcation dated 28.4.1984 and on reference in OP.No.60 of 1988, the Civil Court enhanced the market value from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre and on appeal preferred by the government in As.No.3185 of 1990, the market value ﬁxed by the Reference Court was conﬁrmed. In that view of the matter, the above mentioned sale transactions have no relevancy and they cannot be taken as comparative and representative sales. Therefore, the Reference Court has not rightly taken into consideration theabove mentioned sale transactions and on the other hand relied on the judgment of this Court referred to above. Further, the Government acquired Ac.5.00 of land belonging to one V.Muralidhar Rao in the year 1986 vide Award dated 23.0.1986 and on reference, the market value was enhanced by the Civil Court from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre. It is on record that a big colony has come up in the earlier acquisition of the land in Sy.no. 433 and the land acquired is having much signiﬁcation as it has gained heavy potentiality in view of the houses constructed in the vicinity of the acquired land. P.W.4 substantially proved the same by deposing that 80 houses were constructed and now the land is situated just on the other side of the road, which is also meant for house sites. Therefore, the learned Reference judge rightly taken into consideration the suggestion that in the subsequent acquisition which was made in the year 1988, 10% increase was given for each year and accordingly the market value of the land was ﬁxed at Rs.38,000/- per acre. It is common knowledge that if the housing colonies have come up in the vicinity of the land acquired in the rural or urban areas there would certainly be some increase in the land price. If the market value ﬁxed in the previous acquisition is taken as basis for ﬁxation of the market value and 10% is added towards escalation of prices for the period elapsed, it works out to more or less Rs.46,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the foregoing discussion, we ﬁx the market value of the land acquired at Rs.45,000/- per acre, which in our view, is just and proper. It is needless to observe that the claimant is entitled to all statutory beneﬁts as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001 SC 3516). In that view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the Government is dismissed and the Cross- objections preferred by the claimant are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date: 10--06-2010. Msnr.