HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT No.1831 of 2000 Dated 24-8-2010. Between: Devineedi Veerabbai. …Petitioner. And: The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram. ...Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT No.1831 of 2000 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2000 passed in L.A.O.P.No.56 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. Appellant herein is the claimant and respondent herein is the Land Acquisition Officer. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The lands of an extent of Ac.3.48 cents of dry land in S.Nos.137/2 and 137/4 of Donthamuru village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District were acquired pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) Notification dated 30-3-1984 for the purpose of house sites to the poor families and the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under award No.34 of 1984 dated 17-12- 1984 fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value considered 22 sale transactions held in the vicinity during the stipulated period and one of the sale transactions under sale deed document No.257 dated 14-2-1983 at Serial No.15 of the award relating to the sale of Ac.0.10 cents from out of the same Survey No.137/2 for a sum of Rs.1,000/- (sale amount) which comes to Rs.10,000/- per acre. But the said sale transaction and several other sale transactions were rejected on various grounds, but no specific reason has been assigned as to why the said sale transactions were rejected. On an application to refer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court considered the evidence available on record. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of Referring Officer, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the claimant, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. Ex.C.1 was also marked. The Reference Court on consideration of the material available on record allowed the reference enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per acre and granting all other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed this appeal. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The claimant himself was examined as R.W.1 who stated that the said land of an extent of Ac.3.48 cents belongs to him and there are crops like topioco, black-gram etc., are being raised by getting an yearly income of Rs.6,000/- per acre as he got bore well facility for the land. The value of the acquired land per acre is Rs.35,000/- at the time of acquisition. Under Ex.B.1, Ac.0.10 cents of land was purchased for a sum of Rs.2,000/- which comes to Rs.20,000/- per acre. Another sale transaction under Ex.B.2 is dated 8-4-1981 in respect of the sale transaction of Ac.0.11 ½ cents for a sum of Rs.1725/-. In cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that Exs.B.1 and B.2 sale deeds are nominal. He also denied the suggestion that the market value of the lands acquired was not more than Rs.3,000/- per acre. R.W.2 is the purchaser of the land covered under Ex.B.1 and R.W.3 is the purchaser of the land covered under Ex.B.2 sale transactions. One A.Gopalakrishna, Head Assistant of M.R.O. Office was examined as P.W.1 who stated that the Land Acquisition Officer relied on sale of plot No.20 in S.No.139/1 and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that the yearly income of the dry land will not exceed Rs.2,000/- per acre. He denied the suggestion that the value of the acquired land was more than Rs.30,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition of the land. One J.Madanagopal, Senior Assistant in R.D.O. Office was examined as P.W.2 who stated that basing on the local enquiry and sales in the vicinity, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken into account the sale transactions of plot No.20 in S.No.139/1 while fixing the market value. Though Exs.B.1 and B.2 are relevant documents, the lands covered under Exs.B.1 and B.2 are situated in different survey Numbers 125/3 and 228/2 respectively in the same village. The sale transactions under Exs.B.1 and B.2 are relating to the extents of Ac.0.10 and Ac.0.11 ½ cents respectively. The sale transactions at Serial number 15 of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in S.No.137/2 on 14-2- 1983 were prior to the issuance of 4 (1) notification dated 30-3- 1984. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the lands are acquired for the purpose of house sites and the said sale transactions being relevant, merely because the claimant has not examined the seller and purchaser relating to the sale transaction of Ac.0.10 cents in S.No.137/2 which in fact were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value, the Reference Court ought not have rejected the claim of the appellant-claimant relying on the said sale transactions. In that view of the matter, we feel that enhancing compensation from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre is just and reasonable. Hence, the compensation from Rs.6,500/- is enhanced to that of Rs.10,000/- per acre and the claimant is also entitled to all other statutory benefits . Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Dated 24-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT No.1831 of 2000 (Judgment delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Dated 24-8-2010.