THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 2449 of 2001 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J,) The State represented by the Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram, has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2004 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari, in O.P. No. 206 of 1996, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry land; Rs.5,000/- per acre for uncultivable land and; Rs.3,000/- per acre for waste/grazing land to Rs.35,000/- per acre uniformly, contending that the same is on the higher side and needs reduction. Along with some other lands, the land of the respondent- claimant in an extent of Acs.3.58 cents in Sy. No. 532/1, Ac. 0.24 cents in Sy. No.533/1 and Ac. 0.70 cents in Sy. No. 544/1, situated in J. Annavaram village of Eleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District, was acquired by the Government by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the purpose of Yeluru project. The Land Acquisition Officer having conducted enquiry as contemplated under the Act, passed award dated 15.02.1990 fixing the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre, in respect of the land in an extent of Acs.1.17 cents in Sy. No.532/1 and Ac. 0.70 cents in Sy. No. 544/1; at Rs.12,000/- per acre in respect of an extent of Acs. 2.36 cents in Sy. No.532/1 and Ac.0.24 cents in Sy. No. 533/1 and; at Rs. 3,000/- per acre in extent of an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy. No. 532/1, besides Rs.8,617.30 ps. towards structures, 30% solatium and additional market value at 12%. The respondent-claimant received the compensation under protest and sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Court below, the respondent examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A1 and A2-documents, while the appellant examined and marked no documents. The Court below after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the Land Acquisition discarded Exs. A1 and A2 and there was no basis for his award. And in the absence of the Land Acquisition Officer placing any evidence to show that the market value fixed by him for the acquired represented the true value, relying on Ex. A1-copy of the judgment in A.S. No. 820 of 2009, dated 27.09.2000, felt it appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.35,000/- per acre, and accordingly by the order under appeal, fixed the said compensation. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals submitted that the transaction covered by Ex. A2 relates to small extent of land, and the value mentioned therein cannot be taken as a comparable sale transaction for the purpose of fixing compensation for large extents of land. And as such, the Court below committed a grave error in taking Ex. A2 into consideration for the purpose of fixing market value of the land in question. He further submitted that the Court below committed an error in relying on Ex. A1-copy of the judgment in A.S. No. 2913 of 1996 for fixing compensation for the acquired lands and it failed to consider that the said judgment will not operate as res judicata. Hence, he prayed that the enhancement of compensation made by the Court below needs reduction. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondent- claimant supported the judgment and decree under appeal and contended that the Court below considering the potentiality of the acquired lands, has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands, and no interference is warranted therewith. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant-Government and the learned counsel for the respondent- claimant and perused the judgment and decree under appeal. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the Court below found that the Land Acquisition Officer, though considered 23 sale transactions, but discarded them, and has not produced any material to justify the classification of the acquired land into five categories. The appellant except stating that the land under Ex.A2 cannot be taken as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land because the land covered thereunder is a small extent of land, has not placed any material as to what exactly was the prevailing sale value of the acquired lands. This apart, the appellant examined R.W.1-Junior Assistant in his office. He stated that he does not have any knowledge of the facts. On the other hand, the respondent-claimant examined P.Ws. 1 and 2, who in their evidence have stated that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.40,000/- per acre on 23.01.1986, and to justify the same, they produced Ex.A2- sale deed. They stated that the distance between the land covered under Ex.A2 and the acquired land is just one and a half kilometer. They also testified that the acquired lands have the same cultivable and yielding potential. This apart, the Court below found that Ex. A2 was marked in several O.Ps., and basing on the said exhibit, compensation was fixed, and that in the appeals arising out the said O.Ps., and one such latest order being A.S. No. 820 of 1999, dated 27.09.2000, this Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry- cum-wet land and Rs.35,000/- per acre for cultivable dry land. The Court below further found that under Ex. A1-copy of the judgment in A.S. No.2913 of 1996, this Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry wet land and Rs.55,000/- for wet land. As Ex. A2-sale deed is said to been marked in several O.P.s, and basing on which this Court had also enhanced the compensation as noticed above, and considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and R.W.1 coupled with Exs. A1 and A2, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in enhancing the compensation for the acquired land to Rs.35,000/- per acre basing on Ex. A1 and A2, and the same, by no stretch of imagination, considering the potentiality of the land, can be said to be on the higher side warranting its reduction in appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondents-claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 18th July, 2011 KSR