HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO CCCA. No. 82 OF 2001 BETWEEN The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (MCH), Hyderabad …Appellant/Referring Officer And M. Viswanatham ….Respondent/claimant HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO CCCA. No. 82 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Challenging the enhancement of compensation by the learned First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the judgment dated 21.12.2000 passed in O.P.No. 42 of 1990, the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred by the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (MCH), Hyderabad. An extent of 117.22 square yards of open plot bearing municipal No. 6-3-248/1, situated at Prem Nagar, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, comprised in T.S.No. 122/2, Block-A, Ward–37,Mallepally Revenue Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, belonging to the sole claimant/respondent, was acquired , for the purpose of road widening, by issuing draft notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, simultaneously published in A.P.Gazette Extraordinary No. 5, dated 26.7.1987. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, after due enquiry as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, passed Award No. B1/305/82, dated 21.8.1988, ﬁxing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.100/- per square yard and awarded compensation of Rs.37,773.14 Ps. The claimant received the compensation under protest and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for due determination of the correct and reasonable compensation payable for the acquired land. On reference, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.300/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present appeal is preferred. In order to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation, the sole claimant besides examining himself as P.W.1 also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On the other hand, in order to dislodge the claim of the claimant and to establish the market value ﬁxed and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer as adequate, reasonable and suﬃcient, R.W.1 was examined and Exs. B.1 to B.3 were marked. The claimant himself deposed that the acquired land is situated abutting the main road and in posh, prominent, commercial and residential locality in the city of Hyderabad. He further deposed about the potentialities of the land acquired and comparable sales covered by Exs.A.1 to A3. P.W.2, the vendor of the property covered by Ex.A.1 sale deed deposed about the purchase of the property at the rate of Rs.490/- per square yard in the year 1986, whereas P.W.3 deposed about the purchase of 500 square yards of 0pen plot by the A.P.Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in the year 1980 at the rate of Rs.500/- per square yard, which is abutting the National High Way leading from Hyderabad to Bombay. It is on record that the acquired land is situated in post locality, having number of commercial establishments and residential complexes. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 also established the same. The Reference Court, dealt with the documentary evidence adduced by the Referring Oﬃcer and rejected the same on the ground that the LAO failed to substantiate the market value ﬁxed by him for the acquired lands as just and reasonable. It is well settled that the Courts can take judicial notice of the general trend of the price raise. It is not in dispute that the acquired property is situated abutting the road in Banjara Hills, a main and prominent road. The possession of the land was taken as early as on 1.2.1979. It cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that in the year 1987, i.e. as on the date of 4(1) notiﬁcation, area in Road No.1 of Banjara Hills, where the acquired land is situated is an underdeveloped one. In our considered opinion, the Reference Court rightly enhanced the compensation to Rs.300/- per square yard. We do not see any ground to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date: 01-06-2010. Msnr.