IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.461 of 1997 Between: P. Prakash & 9 others .. Appellants AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.461 of 1997 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) The award in O.P.No.22 of 1994, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, dated 30.12.1996, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.50/- to Rs.75/- per square yard led the aggrieved claimants to approach this Court with this appeal seeking further enhancement at least to an extent of Rs.125/- per square yard. 2. As appellants 2 and 3 died subsequent to the filing of the appeal, their legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 11 to 14. 3. The facts leading to the appeal are that the land of the claimants in S.Nos.20 and 22 of Gangaram Revenue Village to an extent of 9922 square yards and the land in S.No.22/aa to an extent of 121 square yards were acquired for the purpose of Railway siding at Vikarabad Railway Junction. After a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), dated 16.12.1993, the award was passed after enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.07.1994 and the compensation at Rs.50/- per square yard was received by the claimants under protest. The possession of the land was taken much earlier on 05.02.1988 and on a reference to the civil Court on the protest of the claimants, the claimants contended before the reference Court that the lands nearby were being sold as house plots and a layout was sanctioned even in 1986 in L.P.No.467/86 for this land. The land in the vicinity was claimed to be of a market value of Rs.300/- per square yard and the Government itself was stated to have paid Rs.175/- per square yard for land in S.No.28 of Vikarabad Village acquired for the purpose of laying a road to the road over bridge. The acquired land was claimed by the claimants to be located within Vikarabad municipal limits within two furlongs from the municipal office, other business establishments and schools and no deduction of 1/3rd need have been made towards development charges and compensation should have been awarded at Rs.300/- per square yard. 4. The Government opposed the claims justifying the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and during the enquiry before the reference Court, P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 and B-1 were marked. 5. The reference Court rendered the impugned award referring to the rival contentions and evidence and noting that the land to the east of Ennapally Village acquired for the purpose of an approach road was valued at Rs.100/- per square yard by the civil Court and the land to the west of the acquired land was also similarly valued at Rs.100/- per square yard by the Civil Court under Exs.A-2 and A-3-awards respectively against which the Government was stated to have preferred appeals. The reference Court also noted that the acquisitions under Exs.A-2 to A-5 were much earlier to the subject acquisitions and though there were no direct sale transactions which could have been relied on for the purpose of fixing the market value, the State itself desired that the other notifications for acquisition of land of Gangaram Village can be taken as the basis for fixing the market value. The reference Court also noted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 showed that their lands were also acquired for a similar purpose and their lands were also very near to the subject lands. Still, the reference Court, on analysis of the evidence, was of the opinion that there was no clear proof that the other lands are adjacent to the lands in question and there was also no evidence about amenities like electricity, water, telephone connections available to the acquired land at the relevant time. The reference Court, therefore, considered that as the lands are situated very near to the Railway Station and Bus Stand and there may be some increase in the market value of the land in view of its location, the claimants may be entitled to some enhancement and, therefore, after justifying the deduction of 1/3rd compensation towards development by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court felt that the valuation should be fixed at Rs.75/- per square yard and accordingly granted the same along with all other statutory benefits. 6. The claimants, while limiting their claim to Rs.125/- per square yard in this appeal contended that the reference Court ought to have noted that the acquired land is in a developed area for which a layout was sanctioned long back within the municipal limits of Vikarabad town with all the facilities of a developed locality. The claimants also contended that Exs.A-2 to A-5 ought to have been straight away relied on by the reference Court and even the original claim of Rs.300/- as per square yard could have been upheld by the reference Court. Hence, they desire the enhancement to be granted to them accordingly. 7. Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Smt. A.B. Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. 8. Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants has brought to the notice of the Court the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Appeal Nos.1427 of 1997 and 656 of 1998, on 02.12.1999, in the appeal arising out of Ex.A-2, wherein a Division Bench of this Court modified the quantum of compensation to Rs.85/- per square yard. 9. The point for consideration is what was the probable market value of the subject land at the time of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for fixing the then prevailing market value? 10. Admittedly, much sales statistics or comparable sales during the relevant time were not available due to which either Ex.B-1-award by the Land Acquisition Officer or the impugned award of the reference Court were not very much based on such transactions. 11. The Senior Assistant of the Land Acquisition Officer’s Office who deposed as R.W.1 himself had admitted that the land covered under O.P.Nos.9 of 1993 and 21 of 1991 are closely situated on either side of the acquired land towards eastern side and western side respectively, thus, clearly indicating that the market value fixed under Exs.A-2 and A-3 could have been a dependable basis for arriving at the market value of the subject land at the relevant time. Even concerning the land in S.No.28 for which the Land Acquisition Officer paid Rs.175/- per square yard under Ex.A-5-copy of Award Proceedings No.B/1215/87, dated 15.12.1994, R.W.1 was positive that the said lands were only at a distance of ½ kilometer from the acquired lands. The witness claimed to have accompanied the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of inspection of the acquired lands and while reiterating that the acquired lands are within a distance of two furlongs from the Railway Station and Bus Stand, the witness was also positive that the lands covered under O.P.Nos.9 of 1993 and 21 of 1991 were acquired much prior to the acquisition in the present case. As the witness for the respondent himself was, thus, clear about the comparability of the transactions relied on by the claimants, there is no explicable reason as to why the reference Court refused to place any reliance on Exs.A-2 to A-5 on which the claimants based their claims. 12. P.W.1 who is the general power of attorney holder of the first claimant was explaining that Ennapally and Gangaram Villages also come under Vikarabad municipality and he stated in detail about the location of the subject lands and the lands covered by Exs.A-2 to A-5 to justify their comparability. Though he admitted that there were no dwelling houses near the acquired land at about the relevant time, his evidence discloses, corroborated by the admissions of R.W.1, that the acquisition of all these lands was for a similar or same purpose. Though P.W.1 did not file the approved layout for the land in question, his claims are not contradicted in this regard by R.W.1. P.W.2 is claimed to be owning land at a distance of about three furlongs from the acquired land and P.W.3 is one of the claimants in O.P.No.21 of 1991 in which the reference Court granted a compensation of Rs.100/- per square yard in respect of an acquisition of 1987 earlier to the subject acquisition. P.W.4 is the general power of attorney holder of the claimants under Ex.A-2-award in O.P.No.9 of 1993 and he is positive that the distance between the acquired land and his land is only ½ furlong with only one survey number intervening between the two lands. He described in detail about the location of the subject land and also stated that when the Land Acquisition Officer paid only Rs.30/- per square yard for his land, the same was enhanced under Ex.A-2 by the reference Court to Rs.100/- per square yard. As observed by the reference Court itself in the impugned award, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 specifically corroborates the claims of P.W.1 about the lands covered by Exs.A-2 to A-5 and the subject lands being similar in nature and value apart from their nearness in location to each other. 13. While Exs.A-2 and A-3 in any view could have been straight away relied on by the reference Court for comparing the value of the lands under the circumstances, even if Ex.A-4, which is more inside in the limits of Vikarabad, could not have been so relied on, a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.1427 of 1997 and 656 of 1998 also, while dealing with Ex.A-2, stated that the evidence in that reference itself showed that the land sold under Ex.A-6 therein for Rs.83/- per square yard within the limits of Vikarabad municipality was comparable to the land acquired under Ex.A-2. While providing an escalation of Rs.2/- per square yard since the transaction under Ex.A-6 therein, the Division Bench fixed the value at Rs.85/- per square yard without making any deductions towards any development charges obviously because of the location of the lands. 14. One of the reasons which dissuaded the reference Court from relying on Ex.A-2 appears to be the pendency of the appeal against the same at the instance of the Government, but the result of the appeal having been placed before this Court and the judgment of the Division Bench having admittedly become final, the same should form the basis for fixing the market value of the subject lands at the relevant time. The reference Court was referring to the absence of any positive evidence about the presence of amenities like electricity, water and telephone connections for the acquired land, but the lands covered by Exs.A- 2 and A-3 also would have had similar advantages or disadvantages. While it is not known whether the appeal against Ex.A-3-award is pending or has been disposed of and while Exs.A- 4 and A-5 are not being relied on for the purpose of fixing the market value of the subject lands in view of the better location of the lands covered by them, the market value has to be fixed with reference to Ex.A-2 which land is adjacent to the subject lands in question. 15. If so, if the market value was fixed at Rs.85/- per square yard under a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 20.06.1989, the claimants will also be naturally entitled to enhancement in value over the years by the time of the subject notification on 16.12.1993 after about 4 ½ years. Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants brought to notice the series of decisions commencing from RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH[1] and ending with DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BALI RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS[2] for the settled proposition that suitable increase in the market value of the lands over the years has to be permitted in assessing the market value at the relevant times. It is seen from the decisions that adopting an escalation of 10% for year is an acceptable norm and if such a norm were to be adopted, the prevailing market value of the subject lands by the time of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 16.12.1993, should be calculated at about Rs.123/- per square yard. As the claim of the claimants is only for Rs.125/- per square yard with a permissible marginal variation, the same can be safely granted in respect of the subject acquisition. 16. However, it is seen from the impugned award that interest was awarded from 05.02.1988, the date of taking possession, at 9% per annum for one year and 15% per annum thereafter till payment which runs counter to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act by the Apex Court and the said grant of interest, therefore, has to be modified to be in tune with the present legal position. 17. In the result, the claimants are declared to be entitled to the value of the acquired land at Rs.125/- per square yard with solatium at 30% on such value and an additional amount of 12% on such value from 16.12.1993, the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, till 04.07.1994, the date of the award, with interest from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 16.12.1993 for one year at 9% per annum and thereafter at 15% per annum till payment on the market value of the land, solatium and additional amount and the award, dated 30.12.1996, in O.P.No.22 of 1994, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, is modified accordingly and the payments, if any, already made by the respondent under the impugned award shall be given credit to in the amounts due as per the present determination. 18. The Appeal is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 18th January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.461 of 1997 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Date: 18th January, 2011 KL [1] AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 227 [2] (2004) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 533