THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.3052 of 1999 Date: 23.12.2010 Between: Sri V. Sambasiva Rao … Appellant And The Mandal Revenue Officer cum LAO, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.3052 of 1999 JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order, dated 29.6.1999, in O.P.No.173 of 1988 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking enhancement of the market value at Rs.75/- per square yard, as against the order of the lower Court confirming the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.12,500/- per acre. 2. The facts of the case are that an extent of Acs.4-28 cents of dry land in Sy.No.179/6 to 25 belonging to the appellant along with other claimants was acquired for providing house sites in Cheepurupalli and Gulivindala Agraharam villages. A notification was given and published on 23.9.1979 to 22.9.1982 and an award enquiry was conducted and award was passed on 9.3.1987 fixing the market value at Rs.12,500/- per acre. The claimants claimed that the market value is about Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per square yard and the compensation paid is inadequate. Since there was also a dispute with regard to the title of the property, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it was numbered as O.P.No.47 of 1987 and common evidence was recorded in O.P.No.47 of 1987. On behalf of the claimants RWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-21. On behalf of the Referring Officer, P.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. The lower Court in O.P.No.47 of 1987 decided that the appellant herein will be entitled to compensation for an extent of Ac.1-13 cents, the 2nd claimant M/s. S.Lal & Company Limited will be entitled to compensation for an extent of Ac.0-65 cents, the 3rd claimant M/s. Southern Shippers & Traders is entitled to compensation for an extent of Ac.1-46 cents, and M/s. Lal Traders & Agencies (P) Limited will be entitled to compensation for an extent of A.1-04 cents. The claim of the appellant that the land is potential and fit for house sites is rejected. The other claimants did not prefer any appeal questioning the award of compensation and the 1st claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the market value for his acquired land at Rs.75/- per square yard and to deduct 1/3rd from it. 3. The points that arise for consideration are— (1) Whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct and refusal of the lower Court in enhancing the compensation is correct? (2) Whether the order of the lower Court calls for any interference? 4. The appellant herein, who was examined as PW.1, claimed that the land was purchased for storage of manganese ore and exporting the same, but subsequently it was converted as cultivable land and there are residential houses. It is said to be adjoining the railway track and the lands in the vicinity are sold for Rs.100/- per square yard. The other claimant, who were examined as RW.2, also spoke about the potentiality of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration the sale deed, dated 24.7.1980, and fixed the market value at Rs.12,500/- per acre. There were several sales statistics referred by the Land Acquisition Officer. The lower Court found that except Exs.B-1 and B-2 sale deeds, there are no comparable sale transactions filed as proof by the claimants. Even as per the above 2 sale deeds, the prevailing market value was Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/- per acre. 5. It is further interesting to note that the 1st claimant himself purchased the properties under Exs.B-1 and B-2 on 12.3.1980, which is some time prior to the notification. It clearly goes to show that when the 1st claimant, who is appellant herein, is a party and by the date of purchase of his land the market value is not more than Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/- per acre and even assuming that the consideration was stated at low price, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer Rs.12,500/- per acre cannot be said to be unreal. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the appellant to prove the potentiality or the value of the acquired land at Rs.75/- per square yard. Therefore, we hold that the order of the lower Court is based on reasons and the claim of the appellant is based on no evidence and, therefore, the order of the lower Court does not call for any interference. The lower Court has also not granted solatium, interest and additional market value, to which the claimants are statutorily entitled. 6. It is needless to say that the claimants will be entitled to interest over the statutory benefits i.e., market value, solatium and additional market value, as held in SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA[1]. 7. The refusal of the interest over the solatium and additional market value by the lower Court is not legal and accordingly the appeal is allowed in part finding that the compensation granted by the lower Court is reasonable. However, the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits viz., interest over the market value, solatium and additional market value. No order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 23.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.3052 of 1999 23.12.2010 (Msr) [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 SC