HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S.No. 881 of 2005 Date: 02-02-2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector, Warangal. ……… Appellant and Tula Basavamma and another. ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S.No. 881 of 2005 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) This Appeal is filed at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.154 of 1995, dated 16-10-2000 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Briefly, the facts are that an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.112 of Hanamkonda village belonging to the claimants was sought to be acquired by issuing a notification on 18-09-1991 under Section 4(1) of the Act, for the purpose of providing house sites. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer and award was passed on 20-05-1993 fixing the market value at Rs.75,000/- per acre. Having not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants sought for reference and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court below under Section 18 of the Act. During the course of enquiry before the Court below, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. The Court below, after considering the said evidence, placed reliance on the market value determined in the connected reference arose out of the acquisition of the lands situated in the same village, in O.P.No.91 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, which is marked as Ex.A-5, and enhanced the market value of the lands to Rs.2,42,000/- per acre from Rs.75,000/- per acre. Hence, the Appeal. Though the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant submitted that having regard to the sale transactions in Exs.A-1 to A-4, the Court below ought not have accepted them straightaway without comparison, such submission is sought to be repealed on behalf of the respondents-claimants. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, the point, which arises for consideration, is whether the market value as determined by the Court below to the lands acquired is just and reasonable? There is no dispute with regard to the chequered events and also the acquisition itself is one for providing house sites. The claimants sought to substantiate their claim by producing the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and that apart, reliance was sought to be placed on the sale transactions in Exs.A-1 to A-4, however the same was not accepted by the Court below and as there is no appeal filed by the claimants, we do not wish to go into the same. Coming to Ex.A-5 which has been relied on by the Court below, it is a judgment passed in a reference made in respect of the lands situated in the same village. Though there is a slight distance between the lands, however, the fact remains that the lands are of the same village. In view of the same, there is no reason as to why the said document could not be taken as a basis for fixing the market value in the present case. Except the award proceedings, no other material is placed on behalf of the appellant. In fact, the appellant also should have come up with any sale transaction showing lesser value than the value shown in Exs.A-1 to A-4, sale transactions. In the absence of any such rebuttal evidence, we do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion, in regard to the market value fixed by the Court below. However, it is represented that since the possession appears to have been taken prior to the date of 4(1) notification, the Court below has awarded interest from the date of taking possession i.e., prior to the date of issuance of 4(1) notification, which is not correct. The possession was taken on 24-09-1979. In view of the same, we hold that the claimants are not entitled to the interest from the date of taking possession, but entitled only from the date of issuance of 4(1) notification. Therefore, with liberty to the claimants to take appropriate legal remedies available under law, we allow the appeal partly to the extent of interest as mentioned above. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 02-02-2011 YCR