THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15517 of 2009 ORDER: The family of the petitioner owned land in Sy.No.675/1 of Nellore Revenue Village. An extent of 44 cents was gifted in favour of the then Nellore Municipality, while obtaining a lay-out of the land. The petitioner made representation to the then Municipality with a request to re-convey the land, by stating that it is of no use for the Municipality, on account of existence of a canal, etc. The Municipal Council passed a resolution, acceding to the request of the petitioner. Since the permission of the Government is necessary, for re-conveyance of the property, on market value, the matter was taken before the Government. In the meanwhile, the Municipal Council was upgraded to Municipal Corporation. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.32, dated 05-01-2009, accepting the recommendation of the Municipal Council for allotment of 44 cents of land to the petitioner, on payment of the prevailing market value. The District Collector was empowered to fix the market value. On the basis of the G.O., the District Collector, the 2nd respondent herein called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 4th respondent. On verification of the contemporary sales in the immediate neighbourhood, the 4th respondent informed the 3rd respondent that the market value for the surrounding land varies from Rs.47,19,117/- Rs.1,08,53,526/- per ace. However, by referring to the same, the 2nd respondent fixed the market value for the land, at Rs.5 crores per acre. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the 2nd respondent, by himself, did not undertake any exercise of verification of market value. He totally relied upon the 4th respondent. The latter undertook the verification of the contemporary sales in the neighbourhood. Particulars were also furnished, and according to him, the market value was in the range of about Rs.1 crore per acre. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent empowered to fix the market value and he could have differed with the views expressed by the 4th respondent. However, any conclusion that may be arrived at by the 2nd respondent must be, on the basis of valid reasons. He cannot fix the whimsical figures, without any reference or relevance to the facts presented by the 4th respondent. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. He shall pass orders, duly taking into account, the relevant facts; and he shall assign reasons, in support of the conclusions, that may be arrived at by him. The There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-03-2011. KO