THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No.2057 of 1995 JUDGMENT: (per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This appeal is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Huzurabad under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act”) aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.1995 of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.167 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the reference court answered the reference in favour of the claimants fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.21,800/- per acre as against Rs.8,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. An extent of Ac.20-22 gts of dry land belonging to the claimants situated at Dandepalli, Desharajpalli and Kanaparthi villages of Elkathurti Mandal was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and to that effect Draft Notification and Draft Declaration were published under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after completing all the required formalities under the Act, passed award dated 11.08.1988 fixing the market value at Rs.8,000/- per acre. Having not been satisfied with the fixation of market value, the claimants sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and a reference was made. Before the reference court, on behalf of claimants, Claimant No.5 and another were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3. The reference court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, particularly relying on testimony of PW.2 and Ex.A.2-sale deed, enhanced the compensation at Rs.21,800/- per acre as against Rs.8,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the enhancement, the State filed the present Appeal suit. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the State contends that the reference court has committed serious error in enhancing the compensation abnormally taking into account the sale transaction under Ex.A.2-sale deed, which is a small extent of land and it cannot be criteria to determine the market value. The learned Government Pleader further contends that the land covered under Ex.A2 and the acquired lands are not comparable to each other. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the land acquired by the State belonging to small farmers and that the reference court after taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation, which need not be interfered. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. The Land Acquisition Officer acquired an extent of Ac.20-22 gts of dry land belonging to the claimants, who are small farmers, situated at Dandepalli, Desharajpalli and Kanaparthi villages of Elkathurti Mandal for the purpose of excavation of canal and to that effect Draft Notification and Draft Declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published. The Land Acquisition Officer after taking into consideration the sale transactions of preceding three years from the date of draft notification, passed the Award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,000/-per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value, the claimants sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and a reference was made. The reference court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.21,800/- per acre taking into consideration the evidence on record, particularly, relying on testimony of PW.2, vendor in the sale deed-Ex.A.2, dated 31.12.1985 wherein the land which is at a distance of 5 or 6 chains from the acquired land, was sold at Rs.21,800/-per acre. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 so as to discredit their testimony. Apart from that, prior to acquisition of land, the claimants used to raise commercial crops and get an income of Rs.10,000/- per acre. 6. With regard to fixation of market value relying on small extent of land, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has drawn our attention to the decision reported in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others vs. Executive Engineer, Gujart and another 1 wherein the Apex Court held as under: “…… The reduction has been made for two reasons, one, that the present acquisition is of a larger area and second, the distance between the land under acquisition and in Ext.16 is about 5 Km. With reference to question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error lies in the fact that for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each landholder’s land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each land owner’s holdings are of small area. Even otherwise the similar land concerned is about two hectares of land which cannot be said to be a small piece of land. Distance between the two classes of lands itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. However, distance between the land under Ext.16 and the present land, even if they are 5 Km apart, would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from Viramgam town. The present acquired land is about 3 Km away from it, while the land under Ext.16 is about 2 Km away from it. This difference is not such as to lead to reduce the rate of compensation. In the present case, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Ext. 16 and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find any difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs.10 per sq m cannot be sustained.” 8. With regard to deduction of development charges, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has drawn our attention to the decision reported in Nelson Fernandes & others v. Special L.A.O., South Goa & others 2 wherein the Apex Court observed that both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and the High Court have failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. While dealing with the above decision, the Apex Court referred the judgment in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarath 3 wherein it was held that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges. In the referred case, the lands were acquired because they were submerged under water of a dam. In the instant case, the Apex Court held that since the land is acquired for construction of railway line, question of development of said land would not arise. 9. In this case, the land was acquired for the purpose of excavation of canal and therefore, deduction of development charges would not arise. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.21,800/- per acre as against Rs.8,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which, in all probability reflect the true market value prevailing as on that date. 10. Hence, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the order dated 16.10.1995 of the reference court. The claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. No order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 23.10.2009 Stp