THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.794 OF 1998 Dated. -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Rajahmundry …Appellant Vs. Sripada Gopalam ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.794 of 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.5 of 1986 on the file of the court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry dated 24-09- 1996 in O.P.No.5 of 1986 whereunder the market value of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- as against the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.12,000/- per acre. The O.P.No.5 of 1986 was tried along with another O.P.No.105 of 1987. As can be seen from the record, an extent of Ac.1.41 cents of land belonging to the claimant in Sy.No.33/2 of Katavaram village was acquired for providing house sites and the notification was given in 1981 and thereafter an award enquiry was conducted and the market value was fixed at Rs.12,000/- per acre. The claimant herein contended that the lands under acquisition are fertile and income fetching and has got high potentialities for house sites and claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Both the O.Ps were clubbed together and on behalf of the claimants PWS.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to a-3 are marked. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 are marked. After considering the evidence on record, the lower court has passed the decree under appeal. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS:- The lower court has relied upon the general principles of law and also the evidence of PW.1 who is the claimant in O.P.No.5 of 1986 and also the evidence of PW.2, the claimant in O.P.No.105 of 1987. Their evidence disclose that they have been raising commercial crops and raising good yield. The lower court further relied upon the evidence of PW.4, who claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.242 square yards under Ex.A-3 sale deed on 28-06-1982 @ Rs.5/- per square yard from one T.Chinna Venkata Rao. PW.5 also claims to have purchased Ac.1.50 cents from PW.1 @ 20,000/- per acre under Ex.A-2 preceded by the Ex.A-1 agreement. The lower court on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 found that the acquired land is by the side of the road and commercial crops have been raised. The evidence of RW.1 is of no avail since he has no personal interest in respect of the acquired land as he has only a Junior Assistant in the Collectorate. The lower court also considered the contentions of the learned Government Pleader that the documents are not true. According to the lower court by the date of alleged sales, there was no notification and therefore the contention that the documents were brought into existence in anticipation of the acquisition, cannot be accepted. The lower court also took into consideration Ex.B-1 award whereunder the location of the land adjoining the road was marked. The very fact that the land is acquired for house sites and abuts the road clearly shows that it has got potentialities and the learned Senior Civil Judge has in a cogent and acceptable reasons in arriving at the market value which in such circumstances, cannot be said to be unreal or excessive. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award. Accordingly the points are answered. Therefore, Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J -12-2010 TSNR