HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH A.S. No.490 OF 1991 DATED:03.08.2009 Between: Velicheti Sri Krishna Baba Appellant And The Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsildar, Poduru Taluk, Palakole & 5 others. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.Ravindranath Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: Not appeared. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH A.S. No.490 OF 1991 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is preferred by the claimant seeking further enhancement of compensation than the one fixed by the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur in O.P.No.27 of 1982, dated 21.7.1990, whereunder the reference was answered in favour of the claimant enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.28,000/- per acre as against Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that, an extent of Ac.1.81 cents of land belonging to the claimant situated in R.S.No.133/2 of Mulaparru Village was acquired by Government by publishing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) dated 11.11.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits including interest at 6% per annum for the period from15.4.1981 to 31.3.1982 and 15% solatium on the compensation awarded. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant sought for reference to the Civil Court and on reference being made, he appeared before the reference Court and claimed compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre and Rs.200/- per palmyra tree. In order to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of draft notification, the appellant herein himself examined as P.W.1 and 5 more witnesses were examined on his behalf as P.Ws.2 to 6. On behalf of referring officer, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. The reference Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, particularly, basing in Ex.B.3, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits apart from awarding 12% additional market value from the date of notification to the date of taking possession of the property, to which, in fact, the claimant was not entitled to, as the award was passed prior to 30.4.1984. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant strenuously contended that under Ex.A.2 sale deed, the land to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents was sold at Rs.16,000/-, which works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre and therefore, the reference Court ought to have fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre inasmuch as the land covered by Ex.A.2 and the acquired land are similar in nature and situated within the distance of 8 forlongs. He further contended that in the earlier acquisition proceedings pertaining to O.P.No.47 of 1978, compensation was awarded at Rs.30,000/- per acre as seen from Ex.A.6, in which, while fixing the compensation, reliance was placed upon the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.1, dated 24.10.1969, and in that O.P. the draft notification was published on 21.10.1976 and therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- per acre. According to the appellant-claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, under Ex.A.5 sale deed dated 5.12.1970, Ac.0.11 cents of land, out of total extent of Ac.0.86 cents of dry land in R.S.No.426/1 of Mulaparru Village was sold for Rs.2,200/- by one Chilukuri Venkaarao in favour of Nekkanti Venkatarao, which works out to Rs.20,000/- per acre as on the date of the sale deed. Further, under Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 25.4.1980 an extent of Ac.0.40 cents of land covered by R.S.No.57/1 of Nadipudi Village was sold by Talluri Subhadramma in favour of Chituri Somanna for Rs.16,000/-, which works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Apart from that evidence, P.W.6 deposed that himself, his father and his brother sold Ac.0.20 cents of land in Sy.No.67/2 of Nadipudi Village, in favour of Manna Veera Raghavulu for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- under the original of Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 24.10.1969. As the sale deeds covered by Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.5 pertain to different village, the reference Court did not place reliance thereon. As against the above evidence, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Under Ex.B.3 sale deed, dated 22.10.1980, an extent of Ac.0.40 cents of land out of Ac.3.79 cents in R.S.No.139/2A of Mulaparru Village was sold for Rs.8,000/- which works out to Rs.20,000/- per acre. To prove the said sale transaction, R.W.2-the scribe; R.W.3-Vendee; and R.W.4-Vendor were examined. Therefore, having satisfied with the evidence adduced in regard to the sale transaction covered by Ex.B.3 and as the said land is situated in the same village, the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,000/- per acre. The reference Court rightly took into consideration the sale transaction covered by Ex.B.3 as a comparable sale as it was proved by the evidence of R.Ws.2 to 4 and situated in the same village and having same potentiality. Though the appellant- claimant is not entitled to additional market value, he was awarded the same at 12% per annum and if the same is added, the total compensation comes to Rs.29,400/- per acre. Whereas, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant now seeks to enhance the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre, which will not have any much difference than the one awarded. In that view of the matter and as the compensation fixed by the reference Court is based on evidence adduced by the parties, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. AUGUST 03, 2009 Tsr.