THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR A.S.No. 1989 of 2002 Date: 23.12.2010 Between: The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nellore. .. Appellant/ Respondent AND Anam Venkata Subba Reddi, s/o. Seshadri Reddy, Agriculrist, r/o. Kapu Street, Nellore. .. Respondent/ Claimant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR A.S.No.1989 of 2002 JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad): Aggrieved by the Award passed in L.A.O.P. No.29 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore, dated 17.06.2002, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisiiton), Nellore, has preferred the present appeal questioning the enhancement of compensation granted by the reference Court from Rs.65,000/- per acre to Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. 2. For formation of National Highway Byepass Road, the Land Acquisition Officer, Nellore acquired Ac.1.79 cents (wet) and Ac.0.69 cents (wet) in Survey No.806/2 and Sy.No.807/2 respectively and possession was taken from the claimant-respondent herein on 28.02.1994. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.9/93-94, dated 28.02.1994 was received by the claimant under protest and the matter was referred to the Civil Court for adjudication of the claim of the claimant for compensation at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. 3. The claimant contended before the reference Court that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- per acre granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was too meagre, as the acquired lands have high potentiality for conversion into house sites and the land is situated within the limits of Nellore Municiplaity. He further contended that even 47 sale transactions referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, out of 2214 sales during that period would disclose the then prevailing market value to be much higher and under approved layouts similar lands were sold at Rs.75,000/- per plot of 33 1/3rd Ankanams. The value of the acquired land was thus never less than Rs.6,00,000/- per acre during the relevant time. The Land Acquisition Officer denied the contentions of the claimant and pleaded that in the acquired lands, there were no houses and the said acquired lands had no potentiality or the value of house sites. 4. During the enquiry, the reference Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 and B.2. 5. The reference Court rendered the impugned award considering the question whether the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not reasonable and just and if so, what would have been the market value, which ought to have been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. The reference Court in the impugned order referred to the rival contentions and evidence in great detail and noted that it is not in dispute that the acquired lands are situated very nearer to Nellore Town and there was demand for house plots to construct residential houses. The Court also noted that some buildings and other institutions had already come up in the surroundings of the acquired lands. The reference Court, while noting the contentions of PW.1 about classifying the lands into three categories and awarding compensation to the acquired lands in question, which were agricultural lands under paddy cultivation worth Rs.65,000/- per acre, observed that even RW.1 admitted the acquired land to be within Nellore Municipal limits. The admission of RW.1 was that the public auction of the lands of Sri Venogopala Swamy Temple in Sy.No.875 and 862 was not taken into consideration and that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value as per the directions and decision of the Joint Collector, Nellore. The reference Court, therefore, presumed that the Land Acquisition officer himself had not applied his mind in fixing the market value and opined that the registration extracts of sale deeds Ex.A.1 to A.3 ought to have been referred to in fixing the market value, more so Ex.A.3 under which the land was sold for Rs.1,90,000/- per acre. The evidence of the claimant as PW.1 was also referred to, which was corroborated by the Trustee and Manager of Venugopala Swamy Temple as Pws.2 and 3. Though PW.2 spoke about Ex.A.2 sale under a public auction for Rs.28,00,000/- of an extent of Ac.3.06 cents in Sy.No.862 and though PW.3 spoke about the sale of each ankanam for Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- in public auction of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.875, the reference Court did not place much reliance on the said value, as the amounts were fetched in public auction of the temple lands. The reference Court, therefore, opined that taking Ex.A.3 sale transaction as the basis for fixing the valuation, the compensation can be enhanced to Rs.1,35,000/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred this appeal contending that the enhancement has no valid basis in respect of the agricultural lands under paddy cultivation and classification indulged by the Land Acquisition Officer should have been accepted and Exs.A.1 to A.3 could not have been relied on as comparable sales. The State further contended that the lands have to be valued only as agricultural lands and the purpose for which they were acquired should not have been taken into consideration in fixing the market value. Hence, the State desired the impugned order to be reversed. 8. Smt. A.V. Lalitha, Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant are heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the enhancement made by the reference Court represents the then prevailing market value to which the claimant was entitled or was excessive? 10. The fact that the acquired lands are within the limits of Nellore Municipality even prior to the acquisition is not in dispute and though the extent of Ac.1.79 cents in Sy.No.806/2 and Ac.0.69 cents in Sy.No.807/2 might have been classified as wet lands, the reference Court noted that even by the relevant time number of residences and institutions had come up in the vicinity of the acquired lands. Even according to the classification indulged in by the Land Acquisition Officer, some lands had to be classified as house sites worth Rs.85,000/- per acre in comparison with the agricultural lands assessed to be of the value of Rs.65,000/- per acre. The very acquisition was for the formation of national highway bypass road and the necessity for formation of the said road would have arisen only due to the expansion of Nellore Town in the manner claimed by the claimant. While the Land Acquisition Officer depended upon the document No.565, dated 06.02.1992 and document No.4189, dated 12.08.1992, Ex.A.3 transaction is in fact dated 01.04.1987 five years earlier and the same could not have been doubted by the Land Acquisition Officer as has been brought into existence, keeping in view any land acquisition proceedings. Ex.A.3 was found by the reference Court to be in respect of a comparable sale and there is no reason to deviate from the said finding of fact by the reference Court in this appeal. Even assuming that Ex.A.2 sale deed reflects the value fixed in the public auction in respect of the temple lands and could not have been comparable as thought by the reference Court and further assuming that similar transactions spoken to by PW.3 also could not have been comparable sales to assess the prevailing market value, there was no reason for the reference Court to reject the transaction under Ex.A.3 as unreasonable. Even Ex.A.1 sale transaction dated 15.03.1990 in respect of an extent of 35 ankanams of house site, worth Rs.35,000/- was much prior to the two documents relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer and if Exs.A.1 and A.3 disclose comparable sale transactions whose genuineness and bona fides cannot be in dispute, the reference Court taking them as reasonable basis for arriving at the prevailing market value cannot be questioned and the reference Court was in fact much conservative than necessary in ultimately granting compensation only at Rs.1,35,000/- per acre as against Rs.1,90,000/- under Ex.A.3. The claimant did not prefer any cross appeal or cross objections to consider any upward revision, which probably would have been justifiable. The State has not been able to produce any available material either before the reference Court or herein to deviate from the reasonable assumption of the value of the acquired lands by the reference Court and consequently, the appeal has to fail confirming the fixation of the market value by the reference Court and consequential statutory benefits granted by it to the claimant. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. ________________ G. Bhavani Prasad, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 23.12.2010 Isn