IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1176 of 2000 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) Nos.60747 & 97938 of 2000 A.S. No.1176 of 2000 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, (Mandal Revenue Officer) Navipet ..... APPELLANT AND Govur Bhumaiah and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS Cross Objections (SR) No.60747 of 2000 Between: Govuru Nagaiah ..... Cross Objector/R3 AND The Land Acquisition Officer, (Mandal Revenue Officer) Navipet .....RESPONDENT Cross Objections (SR) No.97938 of 2000 Between: Sudarshan ..... Cross Objector/R2 AND The Land Acquisition Officer, (Mandal Revenue Officer) Navipet .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1176 of 2000 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) Nos.60747 & 97938 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The Land Acquisition Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer) Navipet filed the appeal suit whereas the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the said appeal suit who were the claimants filed cross objections against the orders in O.P.400/1993 dated 01.12.1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. The cross-objectors who are the respondents in the appeal suit are hereinafter referred to as “claimants” and the appellant in the appeal suit is hereinafter referred to as “Land Acquisition Officer”. 3. The lands of the claimants admeasuring Ac.2.05 gts in Sy.Nos.658, 660, 661 and 667 situated at Abhangapatnam village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections pursuant to the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14.02.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Ex.A1 award No.B/4529/90 dated 07.12.1992 fixing the market value of the lands in respect of the claimants herein @Rs.16,000/- in respect of Ac.1.16 gts and @Rs.26,000/- in respect of Ac.0.29 gts. On reference, the Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 01.12.1999 in the said O.P.400/1993 fixed the market value uniformly in respect of both categories of lands @Rs.8/- per sq.yard as the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. 4. One of the claimants was examined as RW 1 and stated that the Government acquired the lands of the claimants in 1992 for the purpose of house sites and the said lands are situated by the side of the road running in between Nizamabad to Basar. They used to raise double crop in the acquired lands by irrigating the same through the Nizam Sagar Canal. The said lands are fertile lands and they are situated adjacent to Abbapoor village of Abhangapatnam shivaru. It is stated that the railway station is situated at a distance of two furlongs and M.R.O’s Office, Navipet is situated at a distance of two furlongs from the village of Abhangapatnam. A petrol bunk, cinema theatre, veterinary hospitals are also there. According to RW 1, they used to get net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre and the lands were being sold @Rs.40,000/- per acre. Accordingly, they have claimed compensation @Rs.60/- to Rs.70/- per sq.yard. The claimant has not stated the particulars of the crop used to raise by them and no material has been placed with regard to the income said to have been derived on the acquired lands during agricultural operations. 5. The claimants have also examined RW 2, the purchaser of an extent of 744 sq.yards under Ex.B1 sale deed dated 27.11.1990 for a sum of Rs.29,800/- which works out to Rs.40/- per sq.yard. He stated that the land covered under Ex.B1 is situated at a distance of one furlong or less than one furlong from the acquired land. The lands under reference are situated by the side of the road of Abhangapatnam shivaru, and railway station is also situated at Abhangapatnam shivaru. He denied the suggestion that in order to help the claimants, Ex.B1 sale deed was brought into existence and he was deposing falsehood. 6. A perusal of the award goes to show that the Land Acquisition Officer considered as many as 38 sale transactions pertaining to the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. The Land Acquisition Officer discarded various sale transactions on the ground that the said lands are not similar to that of acquired lands. He also discarded some other sale deeds on the ground that they are situated far away from the acquired lands. One sale deed that was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer was the sale deed i.e. Sl.No.23 of the Award, vide document No.270/1991 dated 31.01.1991 in respect of sale of Ac.0.18 cents for a sum of Rs.12,500/- which works out to Rs.27,777/- per acre. The said sale transaction is one year prior to Sec.4(1) notification. If 10% escalation is added to the item- 23 sale transaction of the award, it comes to about Rs.31,000/-. Though Ex.B1 sale transaction reflects the sale of the land @Rs.40/- per sq.yard, as none was examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, except marking the award with consent, and having regard to the oral depositions of the claimants and Ex.B1, the Reference Court did a guess work in arriving at the market value @Rs.12/- per sq.yard and after deducting 1/3rd, the market value was fixed @Rs.8/- per sq.yard. As admittedly, the lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and therefore, it cannot be said that taking some relevance on Ex.B1 by the Reference Court is erroneous. Though the sale transaction reflected under Ex.A1 award pertains to an extent of Ac.0.18 gts, but the fact remains that the said sale transaction not relates to house site, but whereas the extent of 744 sq.yards covered under Ex.B1 relates to house site. However, the Reference Court has taken only around 20% of the sale value of Ex.B1 and fixed the market value for the acquired lands @Rs.8/- per sq.yard. 7. In view of the above, we do not see any merits either in the appeal suit or in the cross-objections. The appeal suit as well as both the cross objections are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 20.10.2010 Dsr