THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos.430 & 1632 of 1998 Date of Judgment: 29-03-2010 C.T. in A.S.No.430 of 1998 Between: State through Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-collector) Medak. ..Appellant and K.Jyaraj ..Respondent The Court made the following common Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos.430 & 1632 of 1998 Common Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. These two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) by the Government of A.P. through the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and claimant, which are directed against the very same order of the Subordinate Judge, Medak in O.P.No.136 of 1987, dated 16-12-1997, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act acquiring two acres of land; in Sy.No.145/2/2 measuring Ac.1.33 gts. and in Sy.No.145/3/2 measuring Ac.0.07 gts., situated at Medak town for the purpose of providing house sites, was issued on 25-02-1981. The claimants claimed compensation at Rs.200/- per square yard before the LAO. The LAO after complying necessary formalities passed an award dated 14-10-1982 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,500/- per acre and possession was taken on the same date. The claimants being not satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO sought for reference of the matter to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil court in O.P.No.136 of 1987. 3. Before the reference Court P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked documents Exs.A1 to A3. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the O.P. fixing the market value at Rs.38/- per square yard. As against the same the State filed A.S.No.3154 of 1990. This Court by order dated 01-04- 1992 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to civil court for fresh disposal permitting the parties to adduce further evidence. On such remand three more witnesses, namely, P.Ws.4 to 6 were examined apart from re- examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A4 to A16 documents on behalf of the claimants. After remand R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 documents were marked on behalf of the Referring Officer. 4. The reference Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence observed that the evidence adduced by the parties establish that the acquired land having potential value and useful for construction of houses and the evidence adduced by the claimants shows that the acquired land fetches Rs.200/- per square yard on the date of notification, discarded Exs.A1 to A12—sale deeds and fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre as on the date of issuance of notification. Being aggrieved by the same both the State as well as claimant filed the above appeals seeking to set aside the judgment and decree of the civil court and enhancement of compensation respectively. 5. Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.1632 of 1998 and respondent/claimant in A.S.No.430 of 1998 contends that Exs.A5 to A7—registered sale deeds are of the year 1978, three years prior to issuance of notification, where more than 500 square yards of land was sold at Rs.33/- and 31/- per square yard. To prove the same, P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined. Further, under Ex.A8, post notification sale deed also proves there is increase of prices for the lands from 1978 to 1981. Exs.A11 and A12 certified copies of the sale deeds of the year 1978 can also be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. Ex.A11 also establishes that 1177.79 square meters of land was sold at Rs.18.70 ps. per square meter, whereas under Ex.A12, 90 square yards was sold at Rs.40/- per square yard which are located in Medak town and far away from the acquired land which only shows that there is demand for house sites. The reference Court having held that the claimants establish market value prevalent as on the date of issuance of notification at Rs.67/- per square yard is not justified in fixing the compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre abruptly without assigning any reasons. 6. Learned Government Pleader for appeals tried to sustain the award stating that the sale transactions, Exs.A5 to A7 are far away from the acquired land and the same cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value unless the sale deeds filed by the claimants are within the vicinity of the acquired land to prove the market value. 7. In view of the above submissions, the only point that arises for consideration is: “What is the true market value that the claimants are entitled to” 8. P.W.1, who is the claimant in O.P.No.136 of 1987, deposed that the land acquired is situated within the municipal limits of Medak town; on the eastern side there is Teachers Training Institute, on the western side there are 40 houses constructed by the Government to the weaker sections, on the northern side the lands belong to claimant are situated; his father sold the said land to the teachers long prior to the notification; on the southern side there is a PWD road leads to Nizamsagar from Medak. The acquired land is situated nearer to Degree College, MIG and LIG Housing Board Colony, Electricity Office, CWC godowns, Polytechnic college and hostel, Block office and Teachers Training Institute. The Medak is a Mandal office and a Divisional Head Quarters and having Nizam Sugar Factory. There is lot of demand for house sites. In the year 1981 lands were sold at Rs.300/- per square yard but his father sold one gunta of land in the same survey number much prior to notification at Rs.100/- per square yard and handed over the possession. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 21-04-1983 wherein Syed Mohd. Pasha Qadri sold 250 square yards of land for Rs.12,500/- which works out Rs.50/- per square yard. The land covered under Ex.A3 is situated nearer to the acquired land. In the cross-examination he admitted that he has not filed any certificate to show that the acquired land falls within the municipal limits. He stated that the Government has not constructed houses in the acquired land, but his lands are fit for house sites. He denied that he being a influenced person made “Piravi” to boost up the market value to claim more compensation and to increase the price of the land adjacent to it. 9. P.W.4, the vendor of land under Ex.A5, deposed that he along with his mother sold 511 square yards out of 1408.67 square yards owned by them under Ex.A5 for a consideration of Rs.17,000/-. The land under Ex.A5 is at a distance of 600 to 700 yards from the acquired land and both the lands are similar in potentiality. He purchased lands under Ex.A11 along with others from Muneerunnisa Begum for a consideration of Rs.22,000/- on 19-10-1978. Ex.A5 and Ex.A11 are one and the same lands. In the cross-examination he stated that he was aged 18 years at the time of execution of Ex.A5 sale deed and he was student at that time. The lands covered by Ex.A5 are situated near Ramdas cross. 10. P.W.5, who purchased the lands under Ex.A7 on 19-07-1978 to an extent of 580.09 square yards for a consideration of Rs.18,000/-, deposed that the lands covered by Ex.A7 and the acquired lands are similar in potentiality. In the cross-examination he admitted that the lands covered under Ex.A7 and acquired lands are at a distance of 600 yards. Ex.A7 lands are near to Ramdas cross. He denied that the reference lands are 2 kms. to the lands covered under Ex.A5. 11. P.W.6 is the vendor of land under Ex.A8 where 42 square yards were sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per square yard in the year 1991 i.e. 10 years after issuance of notification, which cannot be formed basis for fixing the market value. 12. As against the above evidence, the Junior Assistant working in Sub-Collector Office, Medak was examined as R.W.1. During the cross- examination he stated that the acquired land is situated adjacent to the Mission compound, Medak. Housing Board Quarters, Teachers Training Institute, Indiranagar colony are located some distance to the acquired land; in Ex.B1 a mention was made in respect of transaction at page No.4 in Sy.No.45 that one gunta land was sold for Rs.10,000/-in the year 1978 and the market value of the lands in the town are increasing day by day. 13. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who was examined as R.W.2, corroborated the evidence of R.W.1 and stated that the acquired land is behind the Basic Training School. He denied the suggestion that the acquired land is abutting to the PWD main road, which leads to Medak from Nizamsagar but stated that the acquired land is at a distance of 100 yards approximately to the PWD main road. He also denied the suggestion that the LAO has not taken into consideration the sale transactions covered under Exs.A5 to A7 and Ex.A8 to A11. 14. R.W.3, Mandal Revenue Officer, Medak, admitted in the cross- examination that the LAO has considered 82 sale deeds at the time of fixing compensation. In sale transactions covered under Ex.B1 to B12, it is not mentioned the place and location along with boundaries, but the witness volunteered that the lands covered under Ex.A5 to A12 are situated in Medak town. The distance between the main gate of stadium from Basing Training School is ½ k.m. and denied the suggestion that the acquired lands are at a distance 100 yards to the main gate of stadium. 15. From the above evidence, it is clear that Exs.A5, A6 and A7 are three years prior to issuance of notification where 511 and 580 square yards of land was sold at Rs.33/- 19.56 and 31 respectively. To prove Exs.A5 and A7, P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined. Under Ex.A11 an extent of 1177.79 square meters of land was sold at Rs.18.70 ps. per square meter, whereas under Ex.A12, 90 square yards was sold at Rs.40/- per square yard but the same is situated in the Medak town far away from the acquired land. The same cannot be form basis for fixation of the market value. The reference Court rightly discarded the same. The evidence of P.W.4 shows that the land covered under Ex.A5 is at a distance of 600 to 700 yards from the acquired land and he purchased the same along with others from Muneerunnisa Begum. Whereas P.W.5 also deposed that the acquired lands are at a distance of 600 yards from the land purchased by him and have the same potentiality. 16. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 with regard to proximity of the acquired land, which is situated nearby Medak to Nizamsagar road and surrounded by several houses and colleges etc. and the lands have potential value and fit for construction of houses, which is at outskirts of Medak town. The LAO also observed that the town is extended nearer to the acquired land where residential houses are proposed. P.W.2 is the vendee under Ex.A12. P.W.3 is the son of vendee under Ex.A13; they failed to establish that the lands covered under Exs.A12 to A16 are nearer to the acquired land. Even if the said sales are discarded, still remains Exs.A5 to A7. When the lands were sold at Rs.33/- per square yard under Ex.A5 and Rs.31/- per square yard under Ex.A7, which are nearer to the acquired land and after giving due escalation for three years the market value works out to Rs.40/- per square yard as on the date of issuance of notification. If 1/3rd of the same is deducted towards developmental charges, since the lands covered under Exs.A5 and A7 are 511 and 580 square yards, the market value works out Rs.26/- per square yard. 17. We accordingly fix the market value at Rs.26/- per square yard which works out to Rs.1,25,840/- per acre which is rounded to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The claimants are also entitled to additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of issuance of notification to the date of award and 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 14-10-1982 for a period of one year and thereafter 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation including additional market value and solatium till realization. 18. In the result, A.S.No.1632 of 1998 filed by the claimants is partly allowed and A.S.No.430 of 1998 filed by the State stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J. 29-03-2010 Murthy