IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR APPEAL SUIT No.1161 OF 1999 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And B.Ramachandra Reddy and six others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR APPEAL SUIT No.1161 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: - (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy] This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) is directed against the decree and judgment of the II Additional Assistant Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, dated 22.01.1999 in O.P.No.75 of 1986. Though the appeal filed by the appellant/respondent was pending for the last 11 years, no steps were taken to serve the respondents/ claimants. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. An extent of Ac.1-06 guntas of land in Survey Nos.383, 384 and 377 was acquired by the Government for laying the approached road by invoking the urgency clause. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16.04.1981, whereas possession of the property was taken on 16.05.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due procedure, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,309/- per acre, by his award under Ex.B1, as against the claim of Rs.200/- per square yard, claimed by the claimants. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, the claimants sought for a reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and on reference being made, they filed necessary claim statements claiming enhancement. To prove the market value, the 2nd claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one of the attestors of the sale deed under Ex.A2, was examined as P.W.2, apart from marking Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. P.W.1, who was one of the claimants, deposed that all the lands, near to the acquired land, were made into plots and many houses were constructed and the acquired land was situated adjacent to the main National highway, which will have more potential value. R.W.1 also admitted in the cross-examination, that the acquired land was surrounded by houses and levelled plots and on the date of acquisition the acquired land was fit for house sites. Under Ex.A1 sale deed the land was sold at Rs.100/- per sq.yd and under Ex.A2 an extent of 72 square yards of land was sold at Rs.5,000/- and the market value of the land under Ex.A2 comes to Rs.69/- per square yard. P.W.2 was the attestor examined to prove the document under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 plan shows the situation of the lands covered by Exs.A1 and A2 at some distance from the acquired land. The trial court after taking into consideration the sale transaction of the same land which is subject matter of acquisition, vide document Nos.1876 and 1877, whereunder the price of the land was mentioned as Rs.26.50 ps. per square yard and Rs.30/- per square yard respectively as per the sales statistics list collected by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the same were not taken into consideration by him for fixation of the market value, and as the transactions under Ex.A1 and A2 also discloses that the acquired land would fetch more than Rs.30/- per square yard as on the date of acquisition, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom, fixed the net market value at Rs.20/- per square yard. It is now fairly well settled that the highest value shown in the sale deeds relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. {See Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras (1969(1) AN.W.R. 45 SC]} In view of the same, the net market value fixed by the trial court at Rs.20/- per square yard, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 25.02.2010 lmv