IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY L.A.A.S.No.437 OF 2005 Between: Y.Jararami Reddy … Appellant And: Special Deputy Collector, Srisailam Project, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY L.A.A.S.No.437 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per GVS,J) This appeal is directed against the order dated 01- 11-2004 in L.A.O.P.No.562 of 1992, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, wherein the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the appellant-claimant was answered, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.500/- per cent and awarding solatium at 30% per annum and interest at 9% per annum for year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and the learned Government Pleader for respondent-Special Deputy Collector. Perused the record. 3. An extent of Ac.0-56 cents in Sy.No.537/1 belonging to the appellant-claimant was acquired along with other lands for the Srisailam Project in pursuance of the notification issued on 29-03-1974 and published on 13-06-1974 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. After complying with the procedural requirements, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.26/80 on 28-03-1980, fixing the market value for dry land at Rs.1,493/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. 4. During enquiry before the trial Court, the Special Deputy Collector, Tahasildar was examined as P.W.1 and the award copy was marked as Ex.A-1. The appellant- claimant examined himself as R.W.1 and two other witnesses R.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge fixed the market value at Rs.500/- per cent. 6. The appellant relied on the sale deed dated 31-05- 1973 wherein an extent of one cent was sold for Rs.1,000/-. The notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 29-03-1974 and it was published on 13-06-1974, which was about one year subsequent to the sale transaction under Ex.B-1. Admittedly, the land covered by Ex.B-1 is in the middle of the village and is a small extent of only one cent, whereas the acquired land is more than half an acre and is used as a kallam. The land covered by Ex.B-1, being of an extent of only one cent, obviously cannot be used a kallam and hence the same does not stand on par with the acquired land. As rightly observed by the reference Court, the said extent of one cent situate in middle of the village covered by Ex.B-1 is useful only as a house site and not as a kallam and hence the value of Rs.1,000/- mentioned in Ex.B-1 cannot be made applicable to the acquired land. 7. The appellant next relied on Exs.B-2 to B-4. Ex.B-2 is the certified copy of judgment in O.P.No.4840 of 1991 and batch dated 20-08-1991 wherein the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.1,000/- per cent based on sale deed dated 11-09-1970 in respect of six cents of kallam land which was sold for Rs.4,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that the acquired land was being used as a kallam and, therefore, the reference Court has rightly not relied on Ex.B-2, which related to kallam land. Ex.B-3 relied on by the claimant is only certified copy of the decree in O.P.No.547 of 1992 relating to an extent of four cents in Sy.No.510/2 of Pathakotha village, wherein the market rate was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per cent. Ex.B-3 is only a copy of the decree and the claimant has not filed a copy of judgment in O.P.No.547 of 1992 and, therefore, the reference Court has rightly rejected Ex.B-3. The other document relied on by the claimant is Ex.B-4 certified copy of judgment in O.P.No.71 of 2001 and batch dated 26-02-2004 which related to the house sites and kallam, situate in Ghanapur village. The acquired land is in Pathakota, which is a different village and there is nothing on record to show that both the villages are proximate to each other or that the value of the lands in kallams in both the villages is at par. As Ex.B-4 relates to a totally different village, the reference Court has rightly rejected to take into consideration Ex.B-4 as well. The appellant-claimant has not filed any village accounts like 10(1) account or No.2 account to show that the acquired land is being used as kallam (hayrick yard) and not for cultivation. The appellant, therefore, failed to discharge the burden cast on him to show that the acquired land is hayrick yard and deserves a higher market rate than the agricultural land. Admittedly, there are no structures also situate on the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer had also not referred to the sale deeds pertaining to Pathakota village in the award Ex.A-1 and did not indicate the basis for fixing the rate at Rs.2,986/- per acre. Under those circumstances, the reference Court sought to rely on Ex.B-1 sale deed dated 31-05-1973, which was within three years prior to the date of notification and while rejecting the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.2,986/- per acre and also the claim made by the appellant at Rs.1,000/- per cent. The reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs.500/- per cent and the same is held just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the said rate fixed by the reference Court at Rs.500/- per cent is confirmed. The reference Court, however, refused to grant the additional market value on the ground that the claimant is not entitled for the same as the award was prior to 30-04-1982. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in SUNDER V. UNION OF INDIA[1], the claimant is entitled for all the statutory benefits, including the additional market value in terms thereof. The reference Court awarded solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that the appellant- claimant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per cent together with all the statutory benefits in terms of the decision of the Apex Court referred to supra. 9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th December, 2010 Lrkm. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516