HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No.1210 OF 1999 DATED:08.09.2009 BETWEEN: Bandla Subba Rao …Appellant AND The Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. …Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No.1210 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is directed against the order and decree, dated 27.12.1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in L.A.O.P.No.16 of 1985. An extent of Ac.2.43 cents of land belonged to the claimant- appellant in Sy.No.156/1 of Palaparru Village of Chilakaluripet Taluk was acquired by Government for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the society. The substance of the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 26.7.1982 and on such publication, possession of the land was taken on 10.8.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 15.11.1983 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.19,700/- per acre, but however, denied the benefits under the Amendment Act, 68 of 1984. The claimant having not satisfied with the fixation of market value sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the market value and on receipt of notice, he filed claim statement before the reference Court claiming compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre. To prove the market value of the acquired land, the claimant apart from examining himself as P.W.1 got examined 3 more witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of referring officer, Incharge head assistant in M.R.O. Office was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3-sale deeds were marked. Ex.X1, the original of Ex.A.5 sale deed was marked through P.W.3. Under Ex.A.1 sale deed, which was executed 5 years 4 months prior to the date of draft notification, the claimant sold the land to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents, situated in the very same survey number, at Rs.400/- per cent to P.W.2. P.W.2, the vendee under Ex.A.1 while corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 stated that he purchased the land covered by Ex.A.1 at Rs.400/- per cent and in the same year another 13 persons also purchased the land from P.W.1 at the same rate and that the said land was purchased for construction of houses. Exs.A.2 and A.3 are the certificates issued by Sub-Registrar regarding the value of the land covered by Sy.Nos.157/2 and 159/2 of Palaparru Village as per the basic value register dated 26.3.1992; Ex.A.4 is the sale deed, dated 6.6.1984; and Ex.A.5 is the sale deed, dated 16.5.1984 executed by P.W.3 in favour of P.W.4. Since those sale deeds are post- notification, they were not taken into consideration by the reference Court for fixation of the market value. Ex.B.1 is the sale deed, dated 25.2.1980 under which, land was sold at Rs.10,000/- per acre; Ex.B.2 is the sale deed, dated 25.2.1980 whereunder, land was sold at Rs.20,000/- per acre; and Ex.B.3 is the sale deed, dated 15.4.1980, under which, land to an extent of Ac.1.85 cents was sold at Rs.37,000/-. The reference Court basing on the decision of this Court reported in Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada v. Vellanki Venkatappaiah High School, Tadeikonda[1] discarded Ex.A.1 sale transaction on the ground that it is 5 years and 4 months prior to the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and that the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 revealed that sale transactions nearer the date of the notification are available. Holding so, the reference Court confirmed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.19,700/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, however, awarded the statutory benefits under the Act 68 of 1984 namely, additional market value at 12% per annum on the market value fixed by the L.A.O. and 30% solatium with interest thereon, which were denied by the Land Acquisition Officer. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for appeals, who have taken us through the entire material available on record. The claimant as P.W.1 testified that the compensation paid at Rs.19,700/- per acre is not according to the prevailing market value, and that at the time of acquisition the land was sold at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Adjacent to the acquired land, towards east, there is a Rahadari (road) which leads to Inagallu Village, which connects to R & B Road. The acquired land is adjacent to the Panchayat road, and that there is a school at a distance of 20 yards from the acquired land, and that Hindu Elementary School is at a distance of 100 metres away. The village is developing towards its south and the population of the village is about 5,000, and that they used to raise cotton crop in the acquired land. He further deposed that he himself sold a portion of the land in the year 1977 to an extent of Ac.0.72 cents to various purchasers at the rate of Rs.400/- per cent, which works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre. One Subba Rao sold the land, which is adjacent to the acquired land, at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. To the west of the acquired land, the land admeasuring half acre situated in Sy.No.157 was sold by Talla Venkata Subbaiah-P.W.3 for house- sites to some ryots at Rs.600/- per cent under a registered sale deed in the year 1982. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had not put forth any evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer as he was not called in the award proceedings, and that he came to know about passing of the award on 16.4.1983, and that he had not received any notice before the award is passed. P.W.2, the vendee under Ex.A.1 sale deed executed by P.W.1, deposed that he purchased Ac.0.03 cents of land in Sy.No.156/1 belonged to P.W.1, which is to the Northern side of acquired land in 1977 under Ex.A.1 at the rate of Rs.400/- per cent. In the same year, another 13 persons also purchased the land from P.W.1 at the same rate, and that they purchased the land for construction of houses, and that the acquired land is fit for house-site. There are elementary schools etc., near to the acquired land. The village is extending towards the acquired land. He denied the suggestion that the rate mentioned in Ex.A.1 sale deed is not the real rate and it was mentioned for the purpose of gaining profits. P.W.3, who worked as Village Munsif, deposed that he sold his land to an extent of Ac.1.00, which is adjacent to the acquired land, for Rs.55,000/- in 1984. He further sold Ac.0.05 cents of land situated in Sy.No.157/2 to one Cherukuri Veeraiah under the original of Ex.A.5 sale deed at Rs.55,000/- per acre. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he executed about 10 to 15 sale deeds for one acre of land sold to his villagers including the original of Ex.A.5. P.W.4 in his examination asserted about his purchasing of Ac.0.05 cents of land under Ex.A.5 for Rs.3300/- from P.W.3 on 16.5.1984. Ex.X.1 is the registered sale deed obtained by him from P.W.3. He denied the suggestion that he obtained Ex.X.1 sale deed inflating the market rate having purchased for lesser amount. As against the above evidence, the Land Acquisition Officer did not choose to examine himself to substantiate the fixation of the market value and none connected with Exs.B.1 to B.3 sale deeds was examined. No-doubt, under Ex.B.3 sale deed an extent of Ac.1.85 cents of land was sold on 15.4.1980 at Rs.37,000/-, which works out to Rs.20,000/- per acre and the same was also referred in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even as per the award, the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.275-2 was sold for Rs.40,000/- on 23.4.1980, which works out to Rs.20,000/- per acre and the land covered by the said sale deed is situated to the south-western side of the acquired land, but however, the said sale transaction was discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the sale deeds dated 6.5.1980, 4.1.1982 and 12.1.1982 which pertain to Sy.Nos.143-2B and 145-1. It is well settled that the award cannot be treated as an evidence unless the person connected with it is examined. Further, in view of insertion of Section 51-A by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, without examining the vendor or vendee, the contents of the relevant sale deed can be relied upon for fixing the market value, as held by the Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. V. Purya[2]. It is also well settled that post-notification sale deeds can also be taken into consideration for fixing the market value. Further as per the decision of the Apex Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi[3] the subsequent sale transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account to show upward trend in prices of land. I n Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona[4], the Apex Court laid down the guidelines which have to be considered and the factors which must be etched on the mental screen in fixing the compensation. In the case on hand, no contra evidence was adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to discard Ex.A.1 sale transaction. With regard to the said transaction, P.W.1 categorically deposed that he sold the plots of Ac.0.03 cents each to 13 persons at Rs.400/- per cent. However, the reference Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Vellanki Venkatappaiah High School, Tadeikonda (1 supra) discarded the said transaction on the ground that it was 5 years 4 months earlier to the notification. In Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. V. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)[5], which is a case went from our own High Court, the Apex Court while reversing the judgment of this Court, categorically held that price of land sold 4 years before at Rs.5/- per sq.yd. is extensive as compared to land under acquisition and therefore, it can be taken for fixation of the market value and considering the date of sale and date of notification, held that the market value would be higher than the figure of Rs.5/- per sq.yd. fixed by the High Court and accordingly, fixed the market value at Rs.9/- per sq.yd. after giving due escalation to the time gap. In the light of the said decision, the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.1 has been sufficiently proved by examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and nothing contra is elicited in their cross-examination nor any evidence has been let in by the Land Acquisition Officer to the effect that the said transaction was brought into existence to boost up the market value of the acquired land. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself was published 5 years 4 months after the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.1 and therefore, at that time there would not be any proposal even for acquisition of the land. The subsequent sale deeds viz. Exs.A.2 to A.5 also goes to show that there was increase in the price of the land. Therefore, the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.1 can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Basing on Ex.A.1 sale transaction wherein land was sold at Rs.40,000/- per acre, if 10 percent escalation per annum is given for the time gap, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Since the land covered by Ex.A.1 is only a small extent of Ac.0.03 cents, if we deduct 1/3rd towards the developmental charges, the market value again remains at Rs.40,000/- per acre. After giving further deduction of Rs.5,000/- towards further developmental charges, we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.35,000/- per acre as against Rs.19,700/- awarded by the reference Court. The appellant-claimant is entitled to additional market value at 12% per annum and also 30% solatium on the enhanced market value and 9% interest from the date of taking possession i.e. 10.8.1982 for a period of one year on the enhanced compensation including 30% solatium and additional market value for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till realization. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. SEPTEMBER 08, 2009 Tsr. [1] 1970 (1) An.W.R.23 [2] (2004) 8 SCC 270 [3] AIR 1988 SC 943 [4] AIR 1988 SC 1652 [5] AIR 1990 SC 731