THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD A.S.NO.110 OF 1994 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS {SR} NO.49754 OF 1994 COMMON JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} Heard both the sides. The State filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the market rate fixed by the Court below as per the order dated 10.06.1993 passed in O.P.No.85 of 1984 by the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act in fixing the market rate at Rs.10/- per square yard and deduction at 30% towards improvements. The respondents-claimants filed Cross Objections {SR} under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to fix the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard and deduct 25% instead of 30% towards improvements. Briefly stated, the facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal and the Cross Objections {SR}, are that by issuance of a notification dated 25.02.1983 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, an extent of Acs.2.93 cents of dry land in R.S.No.886/1 and an extent of Acs.3.02 cents of dry land in R.S.No.886/2 situated in Tirugudumetta, Hamlet of Nidadavole, were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Harijans. Subsequently, possession was taken on 12.11.1983. After holding enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 30.03.1984 fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said rate, the claimants sought reference. Both the parties let in their evidence in the Court below. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the State, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. P.W.1 is the claimant and P.Ws.2 to 7 were examined to speak about certain sale transactions and also other aspects. R.W.1 is the Officer examined on behalf of the State, who has spoken only about the acquisition proceedings. Considering the evidence available on record, the Court below fixed the market rate at Rs.10/- per square yard and deduction at 30% towards improvements. Hence, the appeal and the Cross Objections {SR}. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State contends that having regard to the evidence available on record, the enhancement made by the Court below is unjustifiable and there is no record to show the said claim. Sri N.V.Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants/cross objectors submitted that deduction at 30% towards improvements is not correct and 25% deduction ought to have been done. Further, the Court below did not consider the relevant piece of document apart from other oral evidence, especially, Exs.A9 and A10, which are corresponding copies of judgments dated 22.08.1988 in A.S.No.1718 of 1980 and Cross Objections No.11 of 1981 of this Court and dated 29.10.1991 in O.P.No.35 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, wherein the market rate has already been determined and therefore, the same should have been followed. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below was just and reasonable in fixing the market rate at Rs.10/- per square yard? There is no dispute to the aforesaid acquisition and the proceedings before the Court below. Though several other sale transactions have been produced on behalf of the claimants in Exs.A1 to A5 and A8, and the same were proved by the witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants, ultimately it boils down for consideration to rely on Exs.A9 and A10, wherein the market rate has already been fixed by this Court in further appeals under Section 54 of the Act. Under Ex.A9, the notification was issued in the year 1977 for the lands situated in the same village and acquired under the same acquisition and after the appeal proceedings, this Court fixed the market rate Rs.15/- and deduction at 25%. Ex.A10 is also the reference made under Section 18 of the Act and after appeal proceedings, as per the judgment dated 20.06.2001 in A.S.Nos.1387 and 1946 of 1992, a Division Bench of this Court fixed the market rate at Rs.1,60,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs.33/- per square yard and deduction at 25%. There is no dispute to the fact that the lands are of the same village, even though under Ex.A9, acquisition is of the year 1977 and under Ex.A10, acquisition is of the year 1983 and fixing the market rate at Rs.15/- and Rs.33/- respectively and giving deduction at 25%. Having regard to the lapse of time and also the fact that the notification in the present case is on 25.02.1983, both these documents can safely be taken into consideration at average for fixing the market rate. Hence, the market rate comes to Rs.24/- {Rs.15/- + Rs.33/- = 48/2 = Rs.24/-} per square yard. In view of the above, A.S.No.110 of 1994 filed by the State is dismissed and the Cross Objections {SR} No.49754 of 1994 filed by the respondent-claimants are partly allowed fixing the market rate at Rs.24/- {Rupees twenty four only} per square yard of the acquired land and deduction at 30% towards improvements since the land is acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. It is needless to mention that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 1st March 2011 RRB