IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT Nos.1792 and 1985 of 1999 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahabubabad … Petitioner And L.Ananatha Reddy and two others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT Nos.1792 AND 1985 OF 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer and the cross appeal by claimant No.1, directed against the same order and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy District dated 30.12.1998 in O.P.No.7 of 1995, are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. An extent of 5687 square yards, 4840 square yards and 4477 square yards in survey Nos.25, 27 and 30 respectively, belonged to respondent No.1/claimant No.1 and an extent of 1734½ square yards in survey No.31 of Gangaram village belonged to claimant No.2 were acquired for the purpose of laying the Railway double line by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) published in the A.P.Gazette on 27.08.1983. Possession of the land was taken earlier to the notification on 12.02.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying the due formalities passed an award on 14.09.1994 fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.50/- per square yard, after deducting 1/3rd of the area towards developmental charges. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, claimants sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and on receipt of the notices from the Court, they appeared and claimant No.1 filed claim statement stating that the acquired lands are adjacent and within abadi of town municipality and situated near survey Nos.2 and 7 of Gangaram village. The acquired lands are very near to the Bus Stand, Railway Station, Bus Depot, residential school and have more potential value with all modern amenities like Electricity, Road and Water. The Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have deducted 1/3rd of the area towards developmental charges and claimed compensation at Rs.400/- per square yard together with all statutory benefits for the whole land. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 filed memo adopting the claim petition of claimant No.1. To prove the market value, claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1, claimant No.3 as P.W.2 and one more witness was examined as P.W.3, to prove Ex.A4-sale deed and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, the Senior Assistant working in Mandal Revenue Office was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The reference Court accepting the sale transactions under Exs.A2 and A4 as a comparable sale where the lands were sold at Rs.126/- per square yard on 01.09.1992, fixed the market value of the acquired lands in survey Nos.25 and 27 at Rs.100/- per square yard and for the lands in survey Nos.30 and 31 at Rs.75/- per square yard, after deducting 1/3rd area towards developmental activities. Questioning the enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer filed A.S.No.1792 of 1999, whereas claimant No.1 filed A.S.No.1985 of 1999, who is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.25, 27 and 30. Claimant No.2, who is the owner of the land in Survey No.31 has not chosen to file any cross-objections or cross-appeal. Learned counsel for claimant No.1 contends that when the entire land is acquired for the purpose of widening the approach broad gauge railway line, deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges does not arise. Even if 1/3rd is deducted, taking into consideration Exs.A2 and A4 sale deeds, where a small area was sold at Rs.126/- per square yard, the further deduction from the sale consideration by the reference Court, does not arise as the same will amount to double deduction. Learned Government Pleader sustained the award passed by the reference Court. We have verified the reasons adopted by the reference court and also gone through the entire evidence adduced by the parties with regard to the potentialities of the acquired lands. Ex.A1 is photocopy of the award, dated 12.03.1993, Ex.A2 is photocopy of the registered sale deed whereunder the land was sold at Rs.126/- per square yard on 01.09.1992. P.W.1 deposed that his lands in survey Nos.25, 27 and 30 in all measuring 16,000 square yards were acquired for the purpose of laying Railway double line. The said lands are situated at Vikarabad Nagara Panchayat and they are very near to the Bus Stand, Railway Station of Vikarabad and the area is fully developed area. The market value of the acquired lands was ranging from Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per square yard at the relevant period. The Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquired lands, which were acquired for road over bridge, awarded compensation at Rs.175/- per square yard, which is adjacent to the acquired lands and the said notification was earlier to the notification in the present O.P. He also filed Ex.A3 village map to substantiate his claim that the land acquired in survey No.128 for the purpose of road over bridge is nearer to the acquired lands. P.W.2-Claimant No.3, whose land in survey No.31 measuring about 5,203 square yards was acquired through the same notification, substantiated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 who is the purchaser of the plot in survey No.2 deposed that he purchased the said plot to an extent of 136.88 square yards of Gangaram village for a consideration of Rs.17,200/- at Rs.126/- per square yard, under registered sale deed- Ex.A4, dated 01.09.1992. Whereas R.W.1 admitted that the lands in survey No.2 are very near to the lands in Survey No.25, than that of Survey No.49 which was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing the award and that the lands in survey Nos.2 and 7 are very near to the lands in survey Nos.25 and 27 of the acquired lands belonged to claimant No.1. He also further admitted that the lands in survey Nos.2 and 7 were converted into plots and people constructed houses and the said part of the developed area is merged in the village. He further admitted that the lands in survey No.28 of Vikarabad is attached to survey Nos.2 and 19 of Gangaram village and the said survey No.28 of Vikaabad was acquired for the purpose of road over bridge where the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the compensation at Rs.175/- per square yard and the said notification was earlier to the notification in the present O.Ps. Ex.A3 – sketch of the village map also indicates that the lands covered by Exs.A2 and A3 are nearer to the acquired lands and the survey No.28 which was acquired for the purpose of road over bridge was adjacent to the acquired lands, where the Land Acquisition Officer himself awarded the compensation at Rs.175/- per square yard and survey No.49 on which basis the compensation is fixed, is far away from the acquired lands. In view of the same, the reference court rightly took the sale deeds-Exs.A2 and A4 as comparable sale for fixation of the market value. When 1/3rd of the area is already deducted considering the area involved in Exs.A2 and A4 as small extent, further deduction from the sale consideration by the reference court is not at all warranted. We accordingly fix the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.125/- per square yard for 2/3rd area after deducting 1/3rd towards developmental charges. Claimant No.1 is entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.125/- per square yard for 2/3rd area in S.Nos.25, 27 and 30. It is needless to say that claimant No.1 is entitled to claim interest and additional market value on the enhanced compensation as per the law laid down in Sunder v. Union of India {AIR 2001 SC 3516}. In the result, the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dismissed and the appeal filed by Claimant No.1 is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29.03.2010 lmv