THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.868 of 1998 Date: 23.12.2010 Between: Nandyal Chinna Venkata Reddy … Appellant And Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.868 of 1998 JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order, dated 29.8.1996, in O.P.No.340 of 1988 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, in confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.0-60 cents of land situated in Petnikota village of Kolimigundla Mandal, belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of restoration of breached Saddala Venganna Tank. The total extent of land acquired was Acs.53-92 cents. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made on 28.3.1980, award enquiry was conducted and after making the award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of category No.1 land at Rs.2,500/- per acre and category No.2 land at Rs.550/- per acre. The appellant was not satisfied with the market value and, at his instance, a reference was made. The appellant claimed that he was getting good yield from the acquired land by cultivating dry crops and the market value will not be less than Rs.20,000/- per acre. 3. On behalf of the claimants RWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.B-1. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, PW.1 was examined and marked Ex.A-1. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. Hence the present appeal. 4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 5. Evidently, burden is on the appellant to prove the market value. According to the evidence of the appellant, he was getting annual income of Rs.4,000/- per acre and he claimed that he sold Ac.0-04 cents of land for Rs.1,200/- to one D.Chinna Babu under Ex.B- 1 and the value comes to Rs.30,000/- per acre. The lower Court found that the land sold under Ex.B-1 is kallam site, which are generally located in the outskirts of the village. The land is said to be situated about ½ a kilometer from the acquired land. Evidently, it is a small piece of land and the party to the transaction is the appellant himself. The lower Court found that Ex.B-1 is not relevant and was not taken into consideration. Except the said evidence on record, there is absolutely no material on the side of the appellant to prove the potentialities of the land. The lower Court, therefore, rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. Even learned counsel for the appellant could not show as to what is the material for entitlement of further enhancement of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Therefore, we find that the order under appeal does not call for any interference. 6. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory benefits are not given. 7. It is needless to say that even if any of the statutory benefits are not given, the appellant is entitled for the same as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA[1], since the award was passed on 20.12.1985 i.e., after amendment of the Land Acquisition Act and the proceedings before the Court were also pending subsequently. Therefore, it has to be held that the appellant is entitled to the statutory benefits of solatium, additional market value, interest over the solatium and interest under the statute. The appellant can move the lower Court for such a claim and the lower Court shall pass necessary relief. 8. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 23.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.868 of 1998 23.12.2010 (Msr) [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC)