HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos. 2267 and 2268 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These two Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool are directed against the common order dated 16.10.1999 in O.P. Nos. 69 and 70 of 1994. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Since the respondents have not been served with the notices for the last ten years and the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken any steps to serve them, we have heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeal and gone through the entire record. An extent of Ac.6.12 cents of dry land in Survey No. 322/1A2 situated at Kalluru Village, which is subject matter of O.P.No. 69 of 1994 was acquired by a notification, dated 02.03.1967, covered by Award No. 1 of 1970, 09.02.1970 and an extent of Ac.0.33 cents in Survey No.311/1B and an extent of Ac.5.92 cents in Survey No. 322/1B situated at Kallur Village was acquired by a notification dated 04.03.1965 covered by Award No. 5 of 1969 dated 28.03.1969. An extent of Ac.52.96 cents was requisitioned by the Engineer, Highways for the purpose of formation of National High Way No.7, diversion road to Kurnool. Further, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool sent a requisition for acquiring an extent of Ac.111.21 cents in various survey numbers of Kalluru Village for construction of A.P. Special Armed Police Quarters. The lands under acquisition, except Survey No. 390/2, were taken possession on 10.02.1958. The Land Acquisition officer, after completing the formalities, fixed the market value of the acquired land covered by Award No. 1 of 1970 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per acre and for the lands covered by Award No. 5 of 1969 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per acre. The claimants, dissatisfied with the same, sought for a reference and a reference was made to the civil Court. They appeared before the civil Court and filed claim statements, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. Both the O.Ps. were clubbed and tried together. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.D.O. was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. The claimants have examined R.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.B1 to B24. The Reference Court, after taking into consideration the earlier Award passed by the Reference Court in O.P. No. 114 of 1971, which has been confirmed in A.S. No. 233 of 1975, marked as Exs.B23 and B24, dated 20.07.1998, fixed the market value of the acquired lands covered by Award No. 1 of 1970, Ex.A2, at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per acre, excluding one-third towards providing amenities and development of the land. Similarly, the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land covered by Award No. 5 of 1969 at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per acre as against Rs.2,000/- per acre, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, excluding one-third towards amenities and development charges. Questioning the same, the present Appeals are filed. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that since the possession of the land was taken earlier to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, any sale deeds which were executed after the taking of the possession, though prior to the issuance of the notification cannot be taken into consideration and that to claim higher compensation, the said sale deeds were brought on record. We do not see any merit in the above contention. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents claimants. R.W.8 deposed that his parents-in-law sold Ac.3.00 of land in Survey No.416 in the year 1965 to one Venkateswarlu under the original of Ex.B15 for Rs.45,000/- that the distance between the land covered by Ex.B15 and the lands acquired for by S.A.P. Camp would be two furlongs and in between them, there is Kurnool-Bellary High Way and that by the date of Ex.B15, there were houses in that area. In the cross-examination also, he deposed that the vendee under Ex.B15 is residing at Kurnool and he did not refer the sale deeds and he does not know in which year the lands for S.A.P. Camp were acquired and in which year the National High Way came into existence. Under Ex.B18, R.W.3 purchased Ac.0.02 cents of land in Survey No. 415 of Kurnool Village from one Khaja Mohiddin for Rs.3,000/- under original of Ex.B18 sale deed dated 15.04.1969 and that he sold away the said plot in the year 1974 for Rs.6,000/- and in between his plot and the land acquired for S.A.P. Camp, there is Kurnool-Bellari road. It is now well-settled that the market value of the acquired land has to be determined as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, but not on the date when the possession is taken. On the date of issuance of the notifications, lands were sold at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre and under no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that Ac.3.00 of land was sold for a sum of Rs.44,020/- in the year 1965 by paying the stamp duty and registration fee and that too by third party. In view of the same, it can be safely concluded that the market value prevalent as on the ate of issuance of notification is more than Rs.15,000/- per acre. This Court in A.S.No.233 of 1975, Exs.B23 and B24, which arose out of O.P.No. 114 of 1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per acre after deducting one-third towards development charges. In view of the same, the claimants in O.P.No.69 of 1994, whose lands were covered by Award No. 1 of 1970 are entitled to the very same compensation as fixed by this Court in A.S.No. 233 of 1975. Since the lands covered by Award No. 5 of 1969 which is subject matter of O.P.No. 70 of 1994 are two years earlier to the notification, the reference Court, after taking into consideration the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer, where he is agreeable to pay Rs.5,000/-, fixed the market value at the rat of Rs.9,000/- per acre with necessary deductions. In our opinion, the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation. We do not see any merit in the contentions canvassed by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Both 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}