IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.2162 OF 2000 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, through Land Acquisition Officer, Karimnagar. … Appellant And Maloth Ramulu … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.2162 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”), by the Land Acquisition Officer- questioning the order dated 27.12.1999 in O.P.No.70 of 1996 by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad wherein the market value was enhanced from Rs.8,500/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent. An extent of Ac.4-00 cents situated in survey No.183 of Narahari Thanda, hamlet of Mulkanur village and Mandal was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of the Schedule Tribes in Narahari Thanda. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 04.02.1992. Possession of the land was taken on 06.05.1993. After due enquiry and following the procedure prescribed, the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award fixing the compensation at Rs.8,500/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant sought reference to civil Court. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of the market value. During the enquiry before the reference Court, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and four other witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on his behalf. The Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre relying upon the sale deed – Ex.A5, whereunder the land was sold at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The claimant as P.W.1 testified that the land is situated in Narahari Thanda, which is hamlet of Mulkanur village and mandal head quarters, that he used to raise chillies, cotton, vegetables, Tobacco and earning Rs.30,000/- per acre. He claimed that the value of the acquired land is Rs.1,50,000/- per acre as on the date of acquisition. According to him there is a community hall and Hanuman Temple adjacent to the acquired land. The claimant sought to rely upon Ex.A5-sale deed under which Ac.0-20 guntas of land was sold at Rs.20,000/- per acre. The said document was also referred to among the sale statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer and noted in the award-Ex.B4 and award proceedings-Ex.B5. But the Land Acquisition Officer sought to ignore the said transaction on the ground that the said land is an agricultural land and is situated away from the acquired land. In stead, the Land Acquisition officer placed reliance on Ex.B1 sale deed, whereunder the land was sold at Rs.85,000/- per acre. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 the Land Acquisition Officer admitted that the land covered by Ex.B1 is in fact situated one kilometre away from the acquired land, whereas the land covered by Ex.A5 is only half kilometre from the acquired land. Thus, it is clear from the admission of R.W.1 himself that the land covered by Ex.A5 is closer to the acquired land in proximity and as rightly observed by the reference Court, it reflects the proper market value than the land covered by Ex.B1. Under Ex.A5, the land is sold at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Further, the admissions of R.W.1 in the cross-examination reveals that the acquired land is situated adjacent to the land at Naraharithanda and is only four kilometres away from Mulkanur village and mandal and in view of the existence of the largest co- operative society in the area, the value of the lands within the radius of 4 kilometres is very high. The Land Acquisition Officer is, therefore, not justified in preferring the transaction in respect of land situated one kilometre away from the acquired land and ignoring the transaction covered by Ex.A5 in respect of land which is in close proximity to the acquired land and bears similar potentiality for development as house sites. In fact, the said land was acquired only for the purpose of house sites for the members of the schedule tribes and in view of its proximate location to the village and mandal headquarters of Mulkanur, it carries a higher value than the agricultural land situated far away. Under those circumstances, the reference Court was justified in placing reliance on the sale transaction contained in Ex.A5 and preferring the value mentioned therein for the purpose of enhancing the compensation. We do not, therefore, see any merit in the appeal and the impugned order of the reference court does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th April 2010 lmv