THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY AS Nos.1781,1790,1708,1709, 1696 and 1707 of 1999 Dt.3-3-2010 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,Khammam ..Appellant V. Mallarapu Venkaiah ..Respondent The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY AS Nos.1781,1790,1708,1709, 1696 and 1707 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT (per the Honourable Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Since all these appeals arise out of the common order, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. All these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam are directed against the common order dt. 19- 4-1999 passed in OP No.97/1996 and batch respectively on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khamam. The brief facts that led to the filing of the appeals are as follows: An extent of Ac.14-37 guntas inS.Nos.52 and 87 situate at Mudigonga village, belonging to the claimants, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of the society, on the requisition made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mudigonda dt. 11-9-1995, by issuing Sec. 4(1) notification of the Act dt. 31- 12-1995. Possession of the land was taken on 29-3-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer after duly conducting enquiry passed an award dt. 4-4- 1996 awarding compensation at Rs.23,000/- per acre. The claimants having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act, to refer the matter to the Civil Court. On reference being made, the claimants filed claim statements claiming compensation at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. To the said claim statements, the Referring Officer filed counter in support of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since all OPs were filed against one and the same award covered by same notification, the reference court clubbed all the OPS and common evidence was recorded in LAOP No.100/96. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, they examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A-1. Under the original of Ex.A-1 dt. 5-1- 1996, P.W.2 sold an extent of 14 ½ guntas was sold to one Kanchara Satyam for a sum ofRs.87725/-, which works out to Rs.2,42,000/- per acre. On behalf of the referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and an award proceeding was marked as Ex.B-1. The reference court after considering the evidence adduced before it, while rejecting the sale deed dt. 5-1-1996 on the ground that it is a post notification sale and it cannot be taken as comparable sale for arriving at current market value and while taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, particularly, a suggestion was made to him by the Government Pleader that High Court fixed the market value of the acquired land for constructing houses to weaker sections in the year 1980, which separates the road and the present acquired land at Rs.25,000/- per acre and after giving due escalation of 10% for every year fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals strenuously contended that once the reference court discarded Ex.A-1, there is no other evidence to arrive at a just compensation and fixation of the market value on the basis of the suggestion made by the Government Pleader by giving due escalation is without there being any foundation and proof about escalation of prices from 1980 and is an erroneous approach. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- claimants while supporting the award under challenge contended that the Government Pleader himself suggested and elicited from P.W.1 about the fixation of market value for the land acquired for constructing houses to weaker sections of the society in the year 1980 at Rs.25000/- per acre, and after adding escalation for 15 years, the reference court fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre, which is the just and reasonable compensation as on the date of notification, which needs no interference. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is: “What is the just and reasonable compensation, the claimants would be entitled to? It is not disputed before us that for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mudigonda sent proposals to the District Collector on 11-9-1995 proposing to acquire the present land. By that time, everybody knows that the said land is going to be acquired by the Government. On approval of the proposals sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer, a Gazette Notification was made on 23-11-1995 and publication was made on 31-12-1995. Ex.A-1 is the registration copy of sale deed dt. 5-1-1996. Under the original of Ex.A-1, P.W.2 sold an extent of 14 ½ gutnas of land to one Kanchara Satyam for a consideration of Rs.87725/-, which works out to Rs. 2,42,000/- per acre. The sale effected under Ex.A-1 is a post notification sale. If we exclude Ex.A-1, there is no other documents evidence except the oral evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that earlier to the present notification, the Government acquired the land in between the road and the present land which was acquired and constructed houses for weaker sections of the society. In other words, the acquired land is adjacent to the land acquired by the Government in the year 1980, where colony was constructed. The acquired land is situated at a distance of 400 yards away from the main road, and the acquired land is half a kilometer away from the main village and police station. Admittedly, the land abutting the main road fetches much higher price than the land lying in the interior. As already stated, adjacent to the acquired land, there existed a housing colony and the acquired land is half a kilometer away from the main village and police station. Fixing of compensation for the land acquired in the year 1980 by the High Court at Rs.25,000/- per acre has not been disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact, the Government Pleader himself suggested to P.W. 1 about the fixation of market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre. It is well settled that the courts while determining the market value has to make note of rise in prices of the lands adjacent to the land which is sought to be acquired. Once housing colony has already come up in the land adjacent to the acquired land, there is every possibility of rise in prices of surrounding lands, and merely because the acquired land was being used for agricultural purpose, the claimants cannot be denied higher compensation on the ground that no comparable sale deed is available. In CHATURBHUJ PANDE V. COLLECTOR, RAIGARH[1] the Supreme Court held that in assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence, they are bound to call into aid their experience of life. As Judge of fact it was open to the appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of probabilities. Keeping in view, if we analyze the tenor of the cross- examination of P.W.1, the claimants would be entitled to higher compensation than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is well settled that normally 10% escalation in price is to be given for each year provided the claimants lead sufficient evidence to the said effect. Since the claimants failed to file sale deeds showing upward trend in prices of the area for grant of 10% escalation on Rs.25,000/- we feel it appropriate to take Rs.1000/- escalation in price per acre for each year and if Rs.1000/- is added to the market value assessed at Rs.25,000/- per acre for 15 years, it works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre. We accordingly fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the impugned award and decrees passed by the reference court fixing the market value at Rs.50,000/- are set-aside and the claimants are entitled to market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre. In all other aspects, the award and decrees shall stand unaltered. The impugned common award and decrees stand modified in the above terms. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J ------------------------ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,,J DT. 3-3-2010 Kmr [1] AIR 1969 SC 255