THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1110 OF 1998 Dated. 31 -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Nalgonda …Appellant Vs. G.Somakka ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1110 of 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order in O.P.No.15 of 1986 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Suryapet enhancing the compensation to Rs.30,000/-. An extent of Ac.3.30 cents of land situated in Sy.No.48 of Anantharam village was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society and a notification was given on 29-10-1980 and an award after enquiry was passed on 18-01- 1983 fixing the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre. The claimant was not satisfied with the market value and he claimed that the value per acre is Rs.15,000/- and the claimant further claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the well. Hence the reference. On behalf of the claimant, Pws.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.X-1 to X-11. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer but award dated 18-01-1983 was marked as Ex.B-1. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Subordinate Judge is reasonable and correct? (2) To what relief? POINTS: In support of the claim, reliance is placed on Ex.X-1 certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 19-05-1979 where under an extent of Ac.2.14 was purchased @ Rs.30,000/- per acre prior to the notification. Ex.X-2 is the sale deed where under PW.2 purchased the land in Sy.No.48 on 20- 11-1990 and constructed a house. It shows that the consideration was Rs.5,000/- per gunta. The said documents relied on by the claimants have no relevancy to come to the authentic value of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the Government has not produced any evidence forgetting the fact that it is the duty of the claimant to prove the potentialities and the real market value. However, he took into consideration the sale deed under Ex.X-1 which was prior to the notification and therefore fixed the market value. Though the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge are not elaborate, but however the fact remains that prior to the notification Ex.X-1 sale transaction has taken place and there is no material to find that in anticipation of the acquisition, the sale deed was brought into existence. Further more, Anantharam is said to be in a developed area. The learned Subordinate Judge has also increased the valuation of the well. Taking into consideration the above facts and available sale deed under Ex.X-1 the market value fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be said to be excessive. So also the fixation of the valuation for the well appears to be based on some evidence, which was accepted by the lower court. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR