THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2158 OF 2000 Dated. 23 -12-2010 Between: Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur …Appellant Vs. Y.Sekhara Reddy and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2158 of 2000 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the decree and order in O.P.No.1666 of 1987 on the file of the court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool enhancing the compensation of the acquired land from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.15,000/-. An extent of Ac.5.63 cents of land belonging to the claimant in Sy.No.49/2 of Chetlamalapuram Village was acquired for the purpose of house sites and possession was taken by dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry and notification was given on 21-07-1984. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and passed an award on 30-04-1986 awarding the compensation of Rs.7,500/-. As the claimant was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimant claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- per acre and the statutory benefits. On behalf of the claimant, PW.1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1. The learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the material on record, fixed the compensation of Rs.15,600/- per acre. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS: This being a claim for enhancement of compensation, the burden is on the claimant to prove the market value. The claimant has relied upon Ex.A-1, which is a sale transaction in the month of January,1984 whereunder the claimant is said to have sold Ac.0.50 cents of land to one P.Srinivasa Reddy for a sum of Rs.7,500/-. The lower court found that this document is reflecting the market value and further there is nothing on record to show that the sale transaction was brought into existence fraudulently and with the knowledge of acquisition. Even on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no other documentary evidence is adduced. The evidence of Land Acquisition Officer shows that the transaction under Ex.B-1 was ignored as he felt that it was brought up to boost up the valuation subsequent to his inspection for acquisition by the Tahsilar. The person who has inspected the land was not examined. Therefore, the lower court rightly rejected the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer. At any rate, there is not of much evidence to disprove the testimony of the claimant or that Ex.B-1 is a concocted document to benefit the claimant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation granted by the lower court. Accordingly, the points are answered. Therefore, Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 23-12-2010 TSNR