HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY L.A.A.S.No.446 OF 2005 JUDGMENT (Per GVS,J): This appeal is directed against the order dated 28- 10-2004 in O.P.No.42 of 2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagityal, wherein the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,500/- per acre for dry land and Rs.22,000/- per acre for wet land to Rs.40,000/- per acre and confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer insofar as well and trees are concerned. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the record. 3. An extent of Ac.2-29 cents of land belonging to the respondents was acquired by the Government for providing house sites to weaker sections in Sy.No.334 and 335, in pursuance of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. After complying with the procedural formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 15-05-1998 and fixed the market value at Rs.6,500/- per acre for dry land and Rs.22,000/- per acre for the wet land in respect of Ac.2-08 gts situate in Sy.No.334 and Ac.0-21 gts in Sy.No.335. Not satisfied with the same, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate Rs.80,000/- per acre and Rs.1 lakh towards costs of the well and Rs.25,000/- towards the value of the tamarind trees. 4. During enquiry before the reference Court, the first claimant R-1 was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 copy of the award was marked. 5. The reference Court enhanced the market value for the acquired land to Rs.40,000/- per acre for both dry and wet lands and confirmed the market value in respect of the well and tamarind trees as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. According to the claimants, they used to raise two crops every year fetching income of Rs.30,000/- per crop and the lands are fertile and situate nearer to the village. They sought to rely on letter Ex.A-1 dated 03-02-1996 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Sub- Collector and letter Ex.A-2 dated 09-02-1996 addressed by the Sub-Collector to the Collector. In Ex.A-1, the Mandal Revenue Officer has stated that the present local market value of the land for house sites is Rs.1,500/- per gunta and there is irrigation well situate in Sy.No.334 and the present cost for digging such well would be Rs.1 lakh and the land owners agreed for payment of compensation at Rs.50,000/-. In Ex.A-2 letter dated 09- 02-1996, the Revenue Divisional Officer reiterated that the market value for the land is approximately Rs.60,000/- per acre. Relying on Exs.A-1 and A-2, the claimants sought enhancement of market value to Rs.80,000/- per acre. Relying on Exs.A-1 and A-2, the reference Court, after making a deduction of one-third, fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre. It is to be noted that Exs.A-1 and A- 2 are the internal correspondence between departmental officials, Ex.A-1 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ex.A-2 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector on the eve of issuance of 4(1) notification. It is not known how copies of the Exs.A-1 and A-2 came into the hands of the claimants. Even otherwise, Exs.A-1 and A-2 did not refer to any comparable sale transactions pertaining to the lands in the vicinity, based on which the rate was suggested at Rs.1,500/- per gunta or Rs.60,000/- per acre. Exs.A-1 and A-2 do not disclose on what basis the revenue officials estimated the market value at Rs.60,000/- per acre. It is well established that the compensation for the land acquired has to be awarded based on the market value of the land and the best way of arriving at a proper market value is by taking into consideration the comparable sale transactions that have taken place in the vicinity of the acquired lands within three years prior to the date of notification. Except relying on Exs.A-1 and A-2, the claimants have not made any effort to place before the reference Court any such documents reflecting the comparable sale transactions of the lands in the vicinity in support of their claim that the acquired lands would fetch market value of Rs.80,000/- per acre. In the absence of any such comparable sale deeds, the reference Court has grossly erred in relying on Exs.A-1 and A-2 letters, which cannot be taken as a basis for fixing the market value. 7. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award Ex.B-1 fixing the market value at Rs.6,500/- per acre for dry and Rs.22,000/- for wet on the basis of the sale transactions that took place between 1993 and 1995, the details of which were referred in the award. The burden squarely lies on the claimants to establish that the market value of the acquired lands is much higher than what is fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award enquiry and for discharging the said burden, the claimants must necessarily produce the comparable sale deeds in respect of the lands in the vicinity of the acquired lands and show that the Land Acquisition Officer has erred in not relying on them. The claimants did not make any such effort at all and simply relied on Exs.A-1 and A-2 internal correspondence between the revenue officials on the eve of the proposed acquisition, which also do not refer to any sale transactions nor indicate any basis for arriving at the market value suggested therein. In the absence of any such evidence adduced by the claimants showing that the market value is much higher than that what fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimants having miserably failed in discharging the burden cast on them, the reference Court has fallen into serious error in relying on Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are not relevant for the purpose of fixing the market value and consequently enhancing the compensation based on Exs.A-1 and A-2. It is a case where the claimants have not adduced relevant and admissible evidence in support of their claim for enhancement. The impugned order of the reference Court enhancing the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre to both wet and dry land is, therefore, vitiated as the same is passed on irrelevant material and is not based on relevant and admissible evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants relied on a decision in STATE OF J & K V. MOHAMMAD MATEEN WANI AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Apex Court was dealing with a matter where the only evidence which had a bearing on the determination of the market price of the land was a report of the local Tahasildar. In the above case, the District Collector asked the local Tahasildar to inspect the acquired land and make a thorough enquiry as regards the price prevailing in the locality and accordingly the Tahasildar submitted a report stating that the market price of the acquired land would be Rs.30,000/- per kanal. It was noted in the above decision that no challenge to the said report was made either by the appellants before the District Court as well as the High Court and no serious arguments were advanced before the Apex Court on behalf of the Union of India or the State which would persuade the Court to reject the report. The Apex Court also found that the Courts below committed serious error in relying on the sale instances which were not comparable. The enhancement made by the Courts below to Rs.45,000/- per kanal was, therefore, set aside and the claimants were entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per kanal. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the letters Exs.A-1 and A-2 relied on by the claimants is only in the nature of correspondence and do not disclose any basis for arriving at the market value suggested therein and placing reliance on Exs.A-1 and A- 2 has been seriously assailed before the reference Court and also this Court by the appellant-State. 9. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th December, 2010 Lrkm. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY L.A.A.S.No.446 OF 2005 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Collector, Jagityal. … Appellant And Yennamaneni Rajender Rao and another … Respondents [1] AIR 1998 SC 2470