THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.Nos.82 and 91 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, are directed against the common order, dated 25.09.2006, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P.Nos.497 and 498 of 1996. An extent of Ac.1.70 cents of dry land each, belonging to the claimants in Survey No.63/2 situated in the limits of Mallampally Village were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the community. Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 16.11.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due procedure, passed Award No.10 of 1996, dated 14.08.1996, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,700/- per acre. Since the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is meagre, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the compensation. On reference being made, the claimants appeared before the reference Court and filed their respective claim statements claiming compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant in O.P.No.497 of 1996 was examined as P.W.1 and examined one more witness as P.W.2, and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 - certified copies of the orders in O.P.No.375 of 1992, dated 21.09.1995 and A.S.No.2050 of 1995, dated 26.02.2002 respectively. On behalf of the Referring Officer, he himself was examined as R.W.1, and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 i.e., copy of Award No.10 of 1996, dated 14.08.1986, certified copy of registered sale deed No.154/94, dated 25.01.1994, and certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994-95 respectively. P.W.1 deposed that the acquired lands are adjacent to the village and fit for house sites. There is a demand for house sites due to acquisition of the land in the nearby villages for submergence under Priyadarshini Jurala Prject and due to the completion of the said project 10 years back itself, the value of the lands was enormously grown up. He further deposed that the Government acquired the lands situated with the limits of Mittadoddi Village for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society, through notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 13.03.1984, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.4000/- per acre and on reference, the reference Court under Ex.A.1-certified copy of the order in O.P.No.375 of 1992, dated 21.09.1995, enhanced the market value and fixed the same at Rs.56,000/- per acre and after deducting 1/4th, awarded Rs.42,000/- per acre. On appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer in A.S.No.2050 of 1995, this Court dismissed the same by order dated 26.02.2002 confirming the market value fixed by the reference Court. P.W.2, who is the son of the claimant in O.P.No.375 of 1992, which was marked as Ex.A.1, and who is a party to Exs.A.1 and A.2 proceedings deposed that the proceedings under the said exhibits are true and correct. R.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer admitted that the lands under the present acquisition and the lands covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 are similar in nature as they are situated in Gattu Mandal. He also admitted that since for the lands acquired on 13.03.1984 the Civil Court arrived at the market value at Rs.56,000/- per acre and after deducting 1/4th, fixed the market value at Rs.42,000/- per acre, the claimants are also entitled to the market value at Rs.42,000/- per acre. The reference Court after taking into consideration Exs.A.1 and A.2, granted escalation @10% per annum and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.90,300/- per acre. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the claimants about the rise in prices, grant of escalation @ 10% per annum by the reference Court cannot be sustainable. On the other hand, the claimants sustained the impugned order contending that the value of the lands has been abnormally increased due to the availability of the water and completion of Priyadarshini Jurala Project. It is well settled that the Judges are not computers. In assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence, they are bound to call into aid their experience of life and the surrounding circumstances prevalent at the time of notification and subsequent to the notification. It is not the case of the Land Acquisition Officer that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are inadmissible in evidence and the same cannot be relied upon. In fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer in his cross examination admitted that the acquired land is abutting the village and that Mallampally and Mittadoddi Villages are adjoining to each other and having the same potentiality. Be that as it may, for the lands acquired in Mittadoddi Village in 1984, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre, and on reference, the reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.42,000/- pr acre after giving 1/4th deduction. When the present lands were acquired for the same purpose of providing house sites, what made the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award fixing the compensation at Rs.5,700/- per acre, even after a long lapse of 11 years 8 months time, is not known. In view of the same, the lower Court rightly justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount fixed by the land Acquisition Officer does not reflect the true market value. It is also well settled that awarding escalation at the rate of 10% for every subsequent year after the base year is neither excessive nor unreasonable in view of the rise in prices. The lower Court, after taking into consideration the settled legal position in Ranjit Singh v. Union Terriotory of Chandigarh[1], Valluri Veerabhadra Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer[2] and Lila Ghosh (dead) through LR Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of West Bangal[3], and after giving escalation @ 10% for each succeeding year, rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.90,300/- (Rs.42,000/- + Rs.48,300/- towards escalation). In view of the same, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. The appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 25.08.2009 va [1] AIR 1993 SC 227 [2] 1998(3) ALD 129 (D.B) [3] 2004(1) ALD 58 (SC)