THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR A.S.NO. 1012 of 1999 Date of Disposal: 18.2.2010 Between: Smt. Lasama Bai @ Sama Bai (died) and another …Appellants and Mandal Revenue Officer …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR A.S.NO. 1012 of 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, J) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad dated 22.7.1987 passed in OP No. 61 of 1986 seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. 2. An extent of 4 acres in S.Nos. 170 and 171 situated at Nippani village in Adilabad district was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. A draft notification and draft declaration under sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) were issued and published in district Gazette, dated 27.2.1984. Notices under Sections 9 (1) and 9 (3) of the Act were issued and served on the landholders. After following the other formalities contemplated under the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,500/- and for the well at Rs.13,000/- and accordingly passed awards dated 30.3.1984 and 6.8.1984 in proceedings No. B1/1524/83 and B1/1524/84 respectively. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and on reference being made to it, the claimant had appeared before the lower court and filed her claim statement claiming compensation of Rs.24,000/- per acre for the acquired land and Rs.25,000/- for the well. 4. The claimant examined R.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Ex.B1-sale deed, dated 14.2.1983 in order to prove her claim for enhanced compensation. R.W.1 is the sister’s son of the claimant, R.W.3 is the son of the claimant and R.W.2 is one of the vendees of land under the original of Ex.B1-sale deed, dated 14.2.1983. R.Ws. 1 and 3 stated that in the acquired land they used to raise cotton and get ten quintals per acre, which was Rs.650/- per quintal. They were also raising red-gram crop and get two quintals of red-gram, which was Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per quintal. There was also a well for which a compensation of Rs.15,442/- was paid. They spent Rs.25,000/- for the well. They made a claim for compensation of Rs.24,000/- per acre for the acquired land and Rs.25,000/- for the well. R.W.2 is one of the vendees under Ex.B1 and he stated that he along with nine others purchased the land to an extent of 20 guntas from the claimant for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- per acre under the original of Ex.B1-sale deed, dated 14.2.1983 for construction of houses. All of them divided 20 guntas of land and constructed their respective houses. He stated that prior to their purchase, the claimant was raising cotton crop in the acquired land and getting an yield of 10 quintals per acre and he was also raising wheat crop as second crop and getting an yield of 10 quintals per acre. She was also raising red- gram in the land apart from the above crops and getting about 4 quintals per acre. They purchased the land in S.No. 169, whereas the acquired land was in S.Nos. 170 and 171 and it was adjoining the land purchased by them. The lower Court accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.17,000/- per acre and Rs.20,000/- for the well. Nothing was elicited in cross-examination of R.W.2 to show that the transaction under Ex.B1 was a collusive transaction and brought into existence to claim higher compensation. There was also no evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to disprove the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant. The claimant appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and produced registration extracts of sale deed under Ex.B1, but the Land Acquisition Officer discarded the same without assigning any reasons. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that when the lower court has accepted the transaction under Ex.B1 to be genuine transaction and also the consideration paid thereunder, and the said transaction being one year prior to the issuance of the notification for acquisition of the land, where residential houses had come up by the date of notification, it ought to have fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that since the genuineness of Ex.B1 was doubted by the Land Acquisition Officer, it could not be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. 6. We are of the opinion that no contra evidence has been adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to disprove the sale deed-Ex.B1 nor was it proved that it was brought into existence to claim higher compensation. Ex.B1 cannot be doubted as there is a time gap of one year between the date of its sale transaction and the date of land acquisition notification. Therefore, the lower court has rightly relied on the said sale deed-Ex.B1 for determining the market value of the acquired land. However, having regard to the developments made in the land adjacent to the acquired land and houses have come up in the land under Ex.B1, and there is time gap of one year from the date of sale to the date of notification, the claimant is entitled to 10% escalation on the sale consideration under Ex.B1. 7. Accordingly we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) per acre by giving 10% escalation and the claimant is also entitled to additional amount of 12% on the enhanced compensation from the date of draft notification i.e., 27.2.1984 till the date of taking possession by the Government i.e., 16.3.1984. The claimant is also entitled to 30% solatium and also interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession i.e. 16.3.1984 to 15.3.1985 and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.18.2.2010 KR