IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADEHSH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH [15TH] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.624 of 2000 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni Kurnool district. … Appellant And: Eduga Kaseemappa … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY AS No.624 of 2000 JUDGMENT: [Per AGR, J] This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, by the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni, is directed against the enhancement of the compensation by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni passed in OP No.2 of 1994, dated 22.09.1999. 2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) for acquiring an extent of Ac.5.22 cents of land in Sy.No.301/B of Sathanur village for formation of the tank near Kaggal village of Mantralayam Mandal was issued on 25.05.1992. Since the possession of the acquired land was taken on 01.03.1981 for the said purpose, the Land Acquisition Officer by his Award No.1/93 dated 22.04.1993, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,000/- per acre, as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- by the respondent/ claimant. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant sought reference of the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the compensation and on reference being made to the said effect, the civil Court received it and numbered as OP No.2 of 1994 and on receipt of the notices, the claimant filed necessary claim statement, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 3. To prove the inadequacy of the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Ex.B.1 registered sale deed dated 28.03.1992 was marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, copy of the award was marked as Ex.B.1 and proceedings as Ex.B.2 and no oral evidence was adduced. 4. The claimant apart from examining himself as RW.1 also examined the purchaser of an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of land under Ex.B.1 sale deed dated 28.03.1992 as RW.2. According to RW.2, she purchased the property in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents for Rs.25,000/-, but obtained the sale deed for lesser amount of Rs.9,000/- in order to save stamp duty and registration expenses. Thus, the sale price under Ex.B.1 mentioned works out to Rs.25,714/- per acre. The learned Senior Civil Judge was of the view that the sale deed was executed though prior to issuance of the notification, but subsequent to taking possession, the same cannot be taken as proper market value and thought to fix the market value of the land at 40% of the value shown in the above sale deed Ex.B.1, i.e., Rs.10,285/- per acre. 5. It is well settled that if the sale deed was three years prior to issuance of the notification or nearer to the date of notification, it can be taken as basis for fixation of the market value. Merely because, the land was taken possession 11 years prior to issuance of the notification, the claimant cannot be deprived of the market value on the basis of the sale transaction which took place nearer to the date of acquisition, unless the Land Acquisition Officer was examined to prove that the sale deed was brought into existence to claim higher compensation. In the absence of such evidence let in by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reasoning adopted by the lower Court that the said sale deed cannot be considered as basis for fixation of the market value, is erroneous. Be that as it may, since the claimant has not filed any cross-appeal claiming higher market value objecting to the method adopted by the lower Court, we confirm the fixation of the market value as fixed by the lower Court. 6. Learned Government Pleader nextly contended that since the possession of the land was taken prior to issuance of the notification, claimant is not entitled to interest and the additional market value from the date of possession. We see sufficient force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. It is well settled and also held by the Apex Court in ‘SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI V. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER[1]’ that for awarding the additional market value, starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount payable remains the date of publication of notification, when the possession is taken earlier to it. In view of the same, award of additional market value at 12% per annum and interest from the date of taking possession i.e., 01.03.1981, till 22.4.93 is set aside and the same is confined from the date of notification i.e., 25.05.1992, till the date of passing the award i.e., 22.4.1993. Similarly, the claimant is entitled to interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation, including additional market value and solatium from the date of notification for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum. Accordingly, the decree in the award to the said extent is modified. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, as stated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.04.2010 bss [1] (2002) 1 SCC 142