HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos. 3718, 3727, 3728, 3730, 3733, 3768, 3811 and 3862 of 2003 and 907 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These Appeals by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Adilabad, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), were directed against the common order, dated 07.08.2003 in O.P.Nos. 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. An extent of Ac.120.05 ½ guntas in various survey numbers situated at Gimma (k) Village was acquired by the Government for construction of broad gauge railway line, by issuing a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, published in the Gazette on 29.11.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer, after completing the necessary formalities, passed an Award on 28.11.1986, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per acre. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act, for due determination of the compensation. On such reference being made, in the above O.Ps., the claimants appeared and filed their claim statements, seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. To substantiate their claim, the claimants have examined the claimant in O.P.No. 32 of 1998 as P.W.1, the claimant in O.P.No. 26 of 1998 as P.W.2 and the claimant in O.P.No. 33 of 1998 as P.W.3 and marked Exs. A1 to A4 on their behalf. The Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on his behalf. P.W.1 stated that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.40,000/- per acre as on the date of issuing the notification and the said lands contain mango, guava and other trees, for which also, the Land Acquisition Officer has to fix the market value. He further stated that the nature of the land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer is of black cotton soil and that they were raising cotton, mirchi, chillies and red gram in the said property as on the date of acquisition and prior to taking possession of the same. The market value prevailing for the said crops are: cotton: Rs.1800/- per quintal, chillies: Rs.2500/- per quintal and red gram: Rs.1500/- per quintal and that they used to get 15 to 21 quintals of cotton, 10 quintals of chillies, 4 quintals of red gram per year as intercrop in the said land. Under Ex.A2, copy of the registered sale deed, dated 01.06.1994 executed by P.W.2 A.Shanta Bai in favour of C. Lakshmi, Ac.0.10 guntas was sold at Rs.10,000/-, which works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre. The land covered under Ex.A2 is at a distance of 100 yards from the acquired land. It was also the subject matter of acquisition by the same notification. According to him, there was another sale transaction between Narayana, S/o Ganganna and Gajula Ashok Kumar with regard to the property in Survey No.9, in an extent of Ac.1.00 for Rs.25,000/- per acre and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is too meager. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no documents were filed to show that the net income deriving from the lands is Rs.30,000 to Rs.40,000/- per acre, but there is no suggestion by the Land Acquisition Officer that the claimants were not raising cotton, chillies and red gram crops as internal crops. P.W.2, who is the vendor of the land under Ex.A2, dated 01.06.1984, and also the claimant in O.P.No.26 of 1998, deposed that she sold Ac.0.10 guntas of land for Rs.10,000/- for the family necessities and to perform her daughter’s marriage. She denied the suggestion that Ex.A2 is brought into existence on coming to know of the proposal of the Government for acquisition of the land for formation of Railway Track. P.W.3 is the claimant in O.P.No. 33 of 1998. He corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and deposed that Ex.A4 was the petition submitted by him claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. As against the above evidence, Revenue Divisional Officer who was examined as R.W.1 submitted in the cross-examination that under Ex.B1 Award, document No. 616 dated 02.06.1984 shows the transaction in respect of an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas sold at Rs.40,000/- per acre, document No. 116, dated 10.02.1984 in respect of Ac.1.00 of land, whose market value is Rs.25,000/- per acre and document No. 187, dated 06.03.1984 in respect of Ac.0.31 guntas, market value of which is Rs.19,350/- per acre. All the three transactions took place prior to the date of issuance of notification. From the above evidence, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer himself has obtained the statistics from the date of issuance of the notification, where Ac.1.00 of land in Survey No. 8/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under document No. 116, 10.02.1984, which is two years nine months prior to the issuance of the present notification. Another extent of Ac.0.31 guntas was sold at Rs.15,000/- on 06.03.1984 which works out to Rs.19,354/- per acre. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. The Collector of Madras[1] that the higher value represented should be normally taken unless there are strong circumstances justifying the different course. When the Land Acquisition Officer himself has called for the sale statistics for the preceding three years, which reflect that the land was sold at Rs.25,000/- and Rs.19,354/- per acre, no reasons were assigned by him in the Award for fixing the market value in this case at Rs.6,000/- per acre. Even if we accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the transaction under Ex.A1 was made on coming to know of the acquisition proposals, document No.116, dated 10.02.1984 where the land was sold at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre was also accepted by R.W.1 and also referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.B1. Further, there is no suggestion to P.W.1 about the crops raised by them and their getting Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- on inter crops as on the date of issuance of the notification . In view of the same, the compensation fixed by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre, in our view, does not call for any interference. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ----------------------- (A. GOPAL REDDY,J) -------------------------- (G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J) 3rd March 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] (1969) 1MLJ (SC) 45