IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1705 OF 1999 Between: Kosara Venkata Reddy … Appellant And: Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisiton), Unit No.IV, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari Distirct. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1705 Of 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per AGR,J) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation, is directed against the order and decree dated 21- 08-1996 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, in O.P.No.41 of 1988, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.27,000/- per acre as against Rs.15,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. An extent of Ac.1-56 cents of dry land belonging to the claimant, situate in R.S.No.58/2 of Guravaigudem village, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of left main canal under Yerrakaluva Reservoir. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the Act’] was issued on 05-12-1985. The possession of the land was taken on 20-11-1982. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following due formalities, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- by the claimant. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred to the Civil Court and the same was numbered as O.P.No.41 of 1988. On receipt of notices, the claimant appeared and filed claim statement seeking higher compensation. 3. In order to prove the market value, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and two more witnesses, who are purchaser and vendor of 300 sq.yards and Ac.0-93 cents of land, respectively, were examined as P.Ws.2 & 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-4- registration extracts of sale deeds were marked. On behalf of Referring Officer, R.W.1, Senior Assistant of Unit IV, Jangareddigudem, was examined and no documents were marked on his behalf. 4. The reference Court discarded Ex.A-1-sale deed on the ground that the land covered under it is a small extent of 300 sq.yards and was prior to issuance of the notification and also Ex.A-2 which was also for a smaller extent of 250 sq.yards and was prior to issuance of notification. Exs.A-3 and A-4 are the registration extracts of sale deeds, which are executed 7 years subsequent to issuance of the notification. The same were also discarded by the reference Court, as they cannot form the basis for fixation of the market value. 5. P.W.1, the claimant, stated in his evidence that he used to raise two crops in the land with the help of bore well water and derive net income of not less than Rs.10,000/- per acre. The said plea has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, as no documentary evidence was filed by the claimant to prove that he raised the crops. The reference Court, after taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1.to 3, who supported the claim of the claimant that he used to raise chillies and tobacco crops in the land, on conservative estimate, has derived the net income at Rs.3,000/- per acre and after applying the multiplier ‘9’, fixed the market value at Rs.27,000/- per acre. 6. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the claimant was raising chillies and tobacco crops with the help of bore well water and getting not less than Rs.10,000/- per acre, the reference Court was not justified in fixing the annual net income at Rs.3,000/- per acre. Further, P.W.2, who supported the evidence of the claimant, stated though the land covered under Ex.A-2 is small extent, the same can be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value after giving due deduction. The learned counsel further contends that the reference Court is not justified in rejecting Ex.A-1 sale deed. He further contends that though the claimant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per acre before Land Acquisition Officer, but the reference Court restricted the claim to Rs.27,000/- per acre and the same deserves to be enhanced. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contends that except the oral testimony of P.W.1 there is no evidence that the claimant was raising commercial crops like chillies and tobacco either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the Civil Court and since Ex.A-1 being small extent of 300 sq.yards of land and the proximity is also not established, the reference Court had rightly discarded the same. 8. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are sale deeds which are subsequent to taking possession of the land by the Government and Exs.A-3 and A-4 are sale deeds which are 7 years subsequent to the issuance of notification for acquisition of the land. The same are not comparable sales and cannot form basis for fixation of the market value. 9. The evidence of P.W.1, the claimant, clearly shows that before acquisition of the land, he used to raise chilly and tobacco crops in it and by selling the produce he used to get an income of Rs.25,000/- per annum. It is also in the evidence of P.W.1 that the distance between the acquired land and the land covered under Ex.A-1 is about 50 yards and one Kesava Rao purchased 300 sq.yards of land from P.W.3 Kodunuri Venkata Mutyala Rao under the sale deed dated 04-04-1985, marked as Ex.A-1, for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and in the self-same survey number P.W.1 sold 250 sq.yards of site to P.W.2 for Rs.2,500/- under a sale deed dated 05-08-1993, marked as Ex.A-2. The Government awarded compensation at Rs.15,500/- per acre. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he neither purchased nor sold the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre at the relevant point of time and except the sale deeds-Exs.A-1 and A-2, there are no other sale deeds. It is also in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that he has not filed any documents to show that he raised nurseries in the acquired land prior to acquisition. Except a suggestion that P.W.1 has not filed any documents to show that he raised nurseries in the acquired land, there is no suggestion to P.W.1 that he has not raised any commercial crops like chillies and tobacco. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence P.W.2 that P.W.1 raised chillies and tobacco crops and the same has to be accepted and the claimant also claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Civil Court that he was raising chillies and tobacco crops with the help of bore well water and getting not less than Rs.10,000/- per acre and even if 50% of the same is deducted towards cultivation expenses, the net income Rs.5,000/- can be taken. Accordingly, the net income per acre is fixed at Rs.5,000/- and applying the appropriate multiplier, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.50,000/- per acre, keeping in view that the claimant is deprived of his income, as the land was taken possession in advance i.e., three years prior to issuance of the notification. The claimant is entitled to additional market value from the date of issuance of notification till the date of award and interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification for a period of one year, thereafter at 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation including solatium and additional market value, as per the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Sunder Vs. Union of India [1]. No order as to costs. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.03.2010 Lrkm. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516