IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY LAAS Nos. 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 538, 539, 541, 450, 452 and 466 of 2005 LAAS No.532 of 2005 & batch Between: Atikala Vijayabhaskar Reddy … Appellant And: Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC) Nandyal … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY LAAS Nos. 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 538, 539, 541, 450, 452 and 466 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY) These appeals are directed against the common order dated 08.11.2004 in LA OP Nos.403, 395, 384, 374, 398, 396, 382, 385, 385, 388, 394 and 398 of 2001 and batch, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, wherein, the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was answered fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.30,000/- per acre, besides, granting other statutory benefits. 2. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Government Pleader for appeals. Perused the records. 3. An extent of Ac.16.06 cents situated in Allur village of Uyyalawada Mandal was acquired in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 10.03.1999 for the purpose of formation of Ayacut road from Sanjamala to Mayalur. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed Award No.36/2000-2001 dated 07.03.2001, fixing the market value at Rs.27,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the awards, the appellants-claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. According to the claimants, the acquired lands are fertile and suitable for raising commercial crops, like groundnut, cotton, tobacco, Bengal gram, sunflower etc., fetching net income of Rs.9,000/- per acre, besides, paddy crop and the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer is meager and inadequate. The claimants sought enhancement of the at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. 4. Before the Reference Court, Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC), Nandyal was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A.1 award No.36/2000-01 and Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 14.05.1996 were marked. On behalf of the claimants, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.79, were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed. 6. PW.1 testified that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the sales statistics and particularly, the transaction contained in Ex.A.2 sale deed dated 14.05.1996, and fixed the market value at Rs.27,000/- per acre. The notification was issued on 10.03.1999 and the sale transaction Ex.A.2 took place within three years prior to the date of the notification and is therefore relevant material rightly taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. As seen from Ex.A.2, an extent of Ac.1.80 cents of the same village Allur was purchased for Rs.20,200/- and the market value was shown as Rs.10,000/-. By allowing margin of Rs.6,596/- in view of the time gap of about three years between the date of Ex.A.2 and the date of notification, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.27,000/- per acre. As the extent covered by Ex.A.2 i.e., Ac.1.80 cents is not small and the said land is situated in the same village Allur and stands at par with the acquired lands and the transaction under Ex.A.2 having taken place within three years prior to the date of notification, the same cannot be discarded and therefore, it was rightly taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer and also by the reference Court. 8. The claimants sought to rely upon Ex.B.2 sale deed dated 15.03.2001 where under RW.2 vendee purchased Ac.3.04 cents. The said transaction under Ex.B.2 being post notification transaction was rightly discarded by the reference Court. 9. The appellants-claimants mainly seek to contend that the reference Court ought to have adopted the capitalization method in fixing the market value in view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants in support of their plea that the lands are having high potentiality and in fact, commercial crops are being raised, fetching income of Rs.9,000/- per acre. The claimants have examined the Price-reporter of Nandyal as RW.3, who produced Ex.B.46 Daily wholesale price register containing relevant entries Exs.B.47 to B.79. They also examined the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Uyyalawada as RW.4, who testified about the yield of Bengal gram and also the expenditure involved in raising the crop. He, however, admitted in the cross-examination that he does not know about the nature of the acquired land or the yield there from in the relevant period between 1996 and 1997. The claimants produced Exs.B.3 to B.38 adangal extracts to show that the commercial crops are raised in the lands. A perusal of the oral evidence coupled with Exs.B.3 to B.38, B.46 and Ex.B.47 to B.79 would show that the evidence regarding the nature of the crops raised and the income they fetch is too general in nature and does not specifically establish the claim of the appellants that commercial crops are raised in the acquired lands at the relevant period and they fetch the income as claimed. According to the claimants, all types of commercial crops like groundnut, cotton, tobacco, Bengal gram, sunflower and cotton seed are all raised besides paddy crop in the acquired lands, but there is no evidence to show as to what crops were raised during relevant period and the yield realized. In the absence of any specific evidence in that regard pertaining to the lands under acquisition, the evidence placed on record which is in general terms as to the potentiality of the lands and their suitability for raising commercial crops would not suffice for fixing the market value by resorting to capitalization method. 10. It is well established that when the data pertaining to the sale transactions of lands, in the vicinity that stand at par with the acquired lands during relevant period is available and when the market value of the acquired land can be fixed by relying upon such sales statistics, resort to capitalization method is unwarranted. The reference Court has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Land Acquisition Officer, Devanagere vs. P. Veerabhadrappa’ (AIR 1984 SC 774) wherein it was held that ‘normally, the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years’ purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value’. In the present case, the evidence of comparable sales is very much available in the form of Ex.A.2 and when that is so, there is no occasion to resort to capitalization method, especially on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimants, which is vague and in general terms. 11. The claimants sought to rely on Ex.B.39 consent award No.31 of 1999 where under, the Land Acquisition Officer, by consent, fixed the market value at Rs.71,000/- per acre in respect of the land situated in Mukkamalla village. Ex.B.40 is the consent award No.35/99 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, SRBC, Banaganapalli for the lands situated in Akumalla village, by consent, fixed the market value at Rs.70,000/- per acre. Ex.B.41 is the consent award No.40/99 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, SRBC, Banaganapalli for the lands situated in Alvakonda village, by consent, fixed the market value at Rs.74,000/- per acre for the dry land, Rs85,500/- per acre for irrigable dry lands with own bore-well and Rs.78,000/- per acre for irrigable dry land with other bore-wells. It can therefore be seen that Exs.B.39 to B.41, apart from the fact that they are consent awards, relate to the lands situated in different villages of Mukkamalla, Akumalla and Alvakonda, which have nothing to do with the acquired lands situated in Allur. The reference Court, has therefore, rightly declined to place any reliance on Exs.B.39 to B.41, as they cannot be taken as basis for arriving at the market value of the lands situated in Allur village. 12. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants- claimants does not therefore establish their plea for enhancement of the market value as claimed by them. On the other hand, the comparable sale transaction contained in Ex.A.2 which cannot be discarded, was rightly taken as basis for fixing the market value. The contention of the appellants- claimants that the reference Court ought to have adopted capitalization method is untenable. As against the market value of Rs.27,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court has in fact, raised the same to Rs.30,000/- per acre taking into account the escalation of prices, and the said market value is held to be just and reasonable. 13. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned common order of the reference Court. There are no merits in the appeals. 14. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.12.2010 bss