HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2008 OF 1999 Dated: 21-04-2010 Between: Mandal Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition Officer, Vemulapally. Appellant AND Mande Hanumantha Reddy & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2008 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) questioning the order and decree of Subordinate Judge, Miryalguda made in O.P.No.19 of 1988, dated 30.03.1991, wherein the market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the records. An extent of Ac.4.24 guntas of land in Sy.No.1 and 116 of Bommakal Village belonged to the claimants-respondents herein was acquired by Government for the purpose of providing house- sites to the members of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 24.12.1984. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 29.4.1985 fixing the market value at Rs.6,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1200/- per gunta, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil Court. During the enquiry before the reference Court, the claimant No.1 himself examined as P.W.1 apart from examining three more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.X1 to X.6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of referring officer, but the copy of the award and award proceedings were marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the reference Court enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not disputed that the land was acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to weaker sections of the society. The award also mentions that the acquired land situated in Sy.No.1 is adjacent to the village and the land situated in Sy.No.116 is adjacent to Harijanawada. The award also discloses that in the acquired land crop like green-gram was raised. P.W.1, the first claimant besides examining himself in support of his claim for enhancement, also examined P.Ws.2 to 4, who all purchased small extents of land for the purpose of house-sites under agreements of sale Exs.X.1, X.3 and X.5 and constructed houses also on those lands. P.W.2 deposed that he purchased Ac.0.02 gts. of land under Ex.X.1 agreement of sale at the rate of Rs.1500/- per gunta. He also produced certificate-Ex.X.2 issued by Sarpanch of the village to the effect that P.W.2 constructed a house on the land purchased by him. P.W.3 deposed that he purchased Ac.0.05 gts. of land under agreement of sale, Ex.X.3, dated 9.6.1982 at the rate of Rs.800/- per gunta and constructed a house thereon. Ex.X.4 is the certificate issued by the Sarpanch to that effect. P.W.4 deposed that he purchased Ac.0.02 gts. of land on 22.4.1982 in Sy.No.1 under Ex.X.5 at the rate of Rs.1200/- per gunta and Ex.X.6 is the certificate issued by the Sarpanch showing that P.W.4 constructed a house on the said site. It is also the evidence of P.W.4 that his house is situated just 50 yards from the acquired land. Of-course, the claimants have not examined the Sarpanch, who issued the certificates under Ex.X.2, X.4 and X.6 to prove their contents but the genuineness of the said certificates has not been questioned by the Land Acquisition officer in the cross-examination and testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 is also not discredited in any manner. Though the documents- Exs.X.1,X.3 and X.5 relied upon by P.W.1 are only agreements of sale, the fact remains that the said documents are duly proved by examining P.Ws.2 to 4 who have purchased various extents of site under those agreements and also constructed houses thereon and their testimony remains unchallenged. As rightly observed by the reference Court, the genuineness of the transactions contained in Exs.X.1, X.3 and X.5 cannot be doubted. However, the reference Court has not taken Exs.X.1, X.3 and X.5 as the basis for fixing the market value and rightly took them into consideration for the purpose of assessing the average market value prevailing at that time in the vicinity of the acquired land. Though the transactions covered by Exs.X.1, X.3 and X.5 relate to small extents, the fact remains that the said extents having been purchased by P.Ws.2 to 4 only for the purpose of construction of houses, they are bound to be small in their extent. Though the documents-Exs.X.1, X.3 and X.5 are not registered sale deeds, still they can be taken into consideration only for the limited purpose of ascertaining the average market value prevailing the vicinity in view of the unimpeached evidence on record to the effect that the transactions are genuine and P.Ws.2 to 4 have constructed houses in the sites purchased by them. The reference Court has, therefore, rightly taken Exs.X.1, X.3 and X.5 into consideration for the limited purpose of ascertaining the average market value prevailing in the vicinity of the acquired land at the relevant time and after giving necessary deductions and margins, fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre for the acquired land which is considered to be just and reasonable. There are absolutely no valid grounds nor any contra evidence is placed by the appellant warranting interference by this Court with the market value as fixed by the reference court. We do not see any merits in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ APRIL 21, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr.