IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.C.C.A. No.54 of 2000 Between: Mukkaram Jah Trust for Education and Learning Purani Haveli, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.C.C.A. No.54 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Mukkaram Jah Trust for Education and Learning, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad is the appellant herein and claimant in O.P.569/1987 on the file of the 1st Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whose land of an extent of 7592.19 sq.yards situated at Purani Haveli covered by T.S.No.8/1 to 8/3, 8/5 and 8/7, bearing House Nos.27-3-681, 22-3-682, 22-3-653, 22-3-654, 22-3-947/34 was acquired pursuant to the draft notification issued under Sec.4(1) and Sec.6 declaration published in Hyderabad District Gazette Extraordinary dated 01.03.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted award enquiry and passed Ex.B1 award dated 23.09.1986 awarding compensation of Rs.8,95,546-30 ps @Rs.60/- per sq.yard for the acquired land which includes statutory benefits and interest etc. As the land acquired is having various house numbers, the petitioner made various claim petitions and on the said claim petitions, the reference was made to the Civil Court in O.P.569/1987. The Reference Court allowed the said OP in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,071/- towards value of the structures, but no enhancement was made in respect of the value of the land, and the value of the land as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer @Rs.60/- per sq.yard was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed this appeal. 2. We have perused the copy of the award which was marked as Ex.B1. The Land Acquisition Officer considered sale deeds relating to years 1979 to 1982 but not considered the following sale transactions which were also placed before him and which are similar and situated nearby by the acquired land; 1. Item No.8 relates to the sale transaction dated 13.07.1979 in respect of 61 sq.yards bearing House No.22-3-622, sold @Rs.139.34 ps per sq.yard. 2. Item No.13 relates to the sale transaction dated 06.05.1980 in respect of 57 sq.yards bearing House No.22-3-928, sold @Rs.228.07 ps per sq.yard 3. Item No.36 relates to the sale transaction dated 16.01.1982 in respect of 161 sq.yards bearing House No.22-3-947, sold @Rs.217.40 ps per sq.yard. The Land Acquisition Officer discarded the above said sale transactions and relied on Item No.21 i.e. Ex.B3 relating to the sale transaction dated 13.06.1981 in respect of House No. 17.06.348 admeasuring 152 sq.yards which was sold @Rs.65.78 ps per sq.yard. Though the sale transaction of the said house reflects the sale price @Rs.65.78 ps per sq.yard, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate of the acquired land at Rs.60/- per sq.yard. The award also discloses that the value of the structures prepared by the Executive Engineer at the time of draft notification at Rs.1,45,071/- was also noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer but no compensation was awarded. Therefore, the Court below on reference allowed the said value of the structures. 3. The undisputed facts as admitted by both the claimant as well as the Land Acquisition Officer are that the land acquired forms part of premises bearing Nos.22-3-681, 22-3-682, 22-3-653, 22-3-654 and 22-3- 947/34. The claimant claimed compensation @Rs.500/- per sq.yard for the acquired land. 4. In support of their claim petition, the Office Superintendent of the Claimant Trust was examined as PW 1. He stated that the Trust was getting income of more than Rs.1,200/- per month on the demolished structures. PW 2 who is said to be the main witness was examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked through him. He deposed that Ex.A2 relates to the sale deed in respect of House No.22-3- 947/A situated at Dabirpura, Hyderabad of an extent of 167 sq.yards and it was sold for a sum of Rs.45,000/- which works out to Rs.269.46 ps per sq.yard and the said property was situated at a distance of 56 yards from the acquired land. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.04.1981 in respect of House No.17-6-256/257, Dabirpura, Hyderabad under which 26 sq.yards was sold @Rs.346.15 ps per sq.yard and the said house was situated at a distance of 80 yards from the acquired land. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.12.1981 in respect of the House bearing No.22-7-490/491 situated at Dabirpura, Hyderabad under which 36.58 sq.yards was sold for a sum of Rs.6,000/- which works out to Rs.164.15 ps per sq.yard and the said house was situated at a distance of 100 yards from the acquired land. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.1.1982 in respect of House bearing No.22-3- 947/3, Dabirpura, Hyderabad under which 161 sq.yards was sold for a sum of Rs.35,000/- which works out to Rs.217/- per sq.yard and the said house was situated at a distance of 70 yards from the acquired land. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.06.1981 in respect of House bearing No.6-348/152 covered by an extent of 152 sq.yards which was sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/- which works out to Rs.65.78 ps per sq.yard and the said property was situated at a distance of 68 yards from the acquired land. It is stated that though the said documents were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, the same were erroneously discarded, therefore, the claimant claimed compensation @Rs.500/- per sq.yard. In the cross examination, the proximity of the houses covered by Exs.A2 to A6 and the value covered by the sale transactions are not at all disputed. 5. PW 3 stated that the claimant is running the institution at Purana Haveli which is an old palace of Nizam and it was still in existence and the same was known as Zahera Nagar. It is situated behind the Purana Haveli in a residential locality and there is a bazaar. He has stated about the importance of the location. He stated that the value of the land on the road side was about Rs.800/- per sq.yard at the time of acquisition. 6. PW 4 is the Trust Engineer of the claimant Trust and he filed Ex.A8 site plan showing the land acquired for widening of the road and for laying the road. 7. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Special Deputy Collector was examined as RW 1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. He stated that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land based on Ex.B3 and the compensation claimed by the claimant @Rs.500/- is excessive and exorbitant. 8. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the order of the Reference Court. The Reference Court did not consider any of the aforesaid sale transactions on the ground that the claimant did not examine any person connected with those documents for taking into consideration of the said sale transactions, and confirmed the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer. 9. In so far as discarding Exs.A2 to A6 are concerned, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court failed to notice the amended provisions of Sec.51A of the Land Acquisition Act which inserted by Act 68/1984 w.e.f. 24.09.1984. As per Sec.51A, the certified copy of the document registered under the Registration Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Despite the said statutory provision, the Reference Court has failed to take note of the said amendment and failed to rely on the said documents. Merely because the vender and vendee of Exs.A2 to A6 are not examined we are of the opinion that the Reference Court ought not to have discarded Exs.A2 to A6, as admittedly the said documents are the certified copies of the original sale deeds which are liable to be received and marked as exhibits under Sec.51A of the Act. Hence, we are of the opinion that the said documents are required to be considered. 10. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent? 11. Admittedly, the land under Exs.A2 and A5 is in respect of House bearing Nos.22-3-947/A and 22-3-947/3 whereas the land acquired is in respect of Houses bearing Nos.22-3-681, 22-3-682, 22-3-653, 22-3-654 and 22-3-947 which are situated in the same locality and the ward. The land under Ex.A2 is situated at a distance of 56 yards and the land under Ex.A5 is situated at a distance of 70 yards from the acquired land. As per evidence of PW 2, though the sale transactions covered by Exs.A3, A4 and A6 works out @Rs.346-15ps, Rs.164-15ps and Rs.65-78ps respectively per sq.yard, the said transactions are in relation to premises situated in some other wards. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the sale transaction under Ex.B3 alone which reflects at Sl.No.21 of Ex.B1 award. Admittedly, Ex.B3 is in respect of House bearing No.17-6-348 which is situated in a different ward and locality and therefore, it cannot be said that Ex.B3 is relevant and comparable sale transaction. 12. As stated supra, we are of the opinion that Exs.A2 and A5 are the relevant sale transactions and both the documents are prior to the notification issued under Sec.4(1). Ex.A2 and Ex.A5 reflect the sale price @Rs.269.46ps and Rs.217/- per sq.yard. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to take the average sale price covered by Exs.A2 and A5 which comes to Rs.243/- per sq.yard. Accordingly, we fix the market value @Rs.243/- per sq.yard for the acquired land. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.60/- to Rs.243/- per sq.yard for the acquired land. It is needless to say that the claimant is also entitled for all statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 07.07.2010 Dsr