IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.NO.930 OF 2000 Date:18-01-2011 Between:- The Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhari .. Appellant And Balraj Goud and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar) The Reference Court awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre together with statutory benefits in respect of the reference made in O.P.No.25 of 1992. The Reference arose when Ac.2- 21gts of single crop wet land located in six serial numbers was acquired by the Government for house sites to the weaker sections. 2. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18-08-1984. In view of the urgency, the advance possession was taken on 25-01-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted enquiry and determined the market value of the acquired property at Rs.6,000/- per acre through the Award dated 21-03-1985. 3. The same was questioned before the Reference Court when the case was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1. He also examined two other witnesses in support of his contention. The Land Acquisition Officer examined the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gandhari Village as the sole witness on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. The Award copy was marked as Ex.B-1. The protest application of the first claimant is Ex.A-1. Exs.A-5 to A-14 are the protest applications of the other claimants. Exs.A-3 to A-5 pahanees for 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 were marked. The learned Senior Civil Judge, as the Judge presiding over the Reference Court considered that the claimants were not entitled for enhancement of compensation on the yardage basis and that they were not entitled to the determination of the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre as claimed by them. He felt that it would meet the ends of Justice if the market value was determined at Rs.15,000/- per ace. Accordingly, the market value was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per acre. 4. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the State preferred the present appeal. 5. Sri S.Md.Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and Sri Y.Neelakanta Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao for the respondents appeared. 6. The Award referred to 17 sales. The Land Acquisition Officer did not place reliance upon the sale deeds at serial numbers 4 to 6 and 14 to 16 on the ground that the lands covered by these sales are away from the acquired land and that the land covered by those sale deeds is irrigated under different source of irrigation. It may be noticed that the market value of the lands covered by serial numbers 5, 6 and 16 are much more than the market value as awarded by the Reference Court. 7. The acquisition in the present case is on 18-08-1984. Most of the sales referred to except serial numbers 16 and 17 and relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer were nearly a year or more prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification. The value as arrived at in these sales, therefore, deserves to be enhanced by 10% per annum. 8. More important is the question whether the lands covered by the various sales referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award are comparative sales and deserve to be taken note of. 9. Curiously, the Land Acquisition Officer points out that the lands at serial numbers 4 to 6 and 14 to 16 out of the various sale deeds considered by the Land Acquisition Officer are not near the acquired lands. Indeed, the acquired lands are much nearer to the village compared to the lands covered by the above sale deeds. Added to it, the acquired lands as well as the lands covered by these sale deeds are all under irrigation albeit under different sources of irrigation. There cannot be any difference or diminution in the value of the lands, merely because the lands acquired are irrigated through different sources of irrigation, vis-a-vis the lands in respect of which the sale deeds were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer as comparative sales. 10. It may be pointed out that the acquired lands are adjacent to the village. They are cultivated by persons belonging to the backward classes. These lands are provided with all essential civic amenities. That apart, it is the contention of P.W.1 that neighbouring lands were sold as house plots at the rate of Rs.20/- per square yard. In view of the sale deeds referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer which in fact have not been relied upon by him and in view of the other circumstances where the potency of the lands acquired is quite clear from their proximity to the village and the amenities that the acquired lands possess, the determination of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre by the Reference Court cannot be found fault with. That being so, the appeal by the State for the deduction of the market value as determined by the Reference Court is not justified. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 18th January, 2011 AMD