HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.1139 of 1999 and 2579 of 2000 APPEAL SUIT No.1139 of 1999 Between: Desu Subbaramaiah and others …APPELLANT(S) a n d The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) APPEAL SUIT No.2579 of 2000 Between: Desu Gopalakrishnaiah (Died) per L.Rs. …APPELLANT(S) a n d The Land Acquisition Officer cum Tahsildar, Madanapalle Taluk, Chittoor District and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.1139 of 1999 and 2579 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) Since both these appeals arise out of a common order dated 06.10.1998 in O.P.No.39 of 1986 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and since the issue involved in both these appeals is the same, they are being disposed of together. Appellants herein are respondents in the said O.P. The lands of appellants in Sy.Nos.317/1, 2 & 3; 334/1, 2, 3 and 4; 335; 331/1 & 2 totaling to an extent of Acs.12-18 cents in B.Kothakota village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. The land acquisition officer issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short – ‘the Act’), on 24.08.1984, and passed an Award on 26.03.1985 fixing the market value @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for the lands in Sy.No.317/1, 2 & 3 to an extent of Acs.3-18 cents; and Rs.8,500/- per acre in Sy.No.334/1, 2, 3 & 4; 335 and 331/1&2 to an extent of Acs.9-00. The total compensation to be paid to the appellants towards the lands acquired from them was Rs.1,08,000/- and with solatium it was Rs.1,40,790/-. The appellants received compensation under protest and sought to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, however, restricting their claim to Rs.18,000/- per acre though some of them have claimed more. The land acquisition officer while fixing the market value of the lands considered as many as seven sale deeds which relate to 3 years prior to the publication of Section 4(1) notification, out of which two documents relate to small extents of land i.e. Acs.0-22 cents where one of such lands was sold at Rs.1,60,000/- and another at Rs.2,40,000/- per acre, and all other documents relate to prior to Section 4(1) notification which reflect the sale value from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.6,250/- per acre. In as much as there were two acquisitions, prior to the acquisition of lands in question, the sale transactions relating to the small extents of land i.e. Acs.0-22 cents and their value to be at Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/- per acre were discarded. It is contended that the land acquisition officer also did not consider the value of the lands, which were acquired prior to the acquisition of the lands in question, in Award No.27/83-84 @ Rs.20,000/- per acre without assigning any reasons, and fixed the market value @ Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8500/- per acre as stated supra. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is the case of the appellants that, admittedly, the lands, which were acquired prior to the acquisition of lands in question, were on the other side of Beerangi Road, and the notification in respect of the said lands is stated to be published in 1983. The land acquisition officer opposed the said claim and contended that the market value fixed by him is justified. The Deputy Tahsildar of the office of the Mandal Revenue Office, B.Kothakota village, was examined as P.W.1, and, during the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know whether 2½ acres in Sy.No.336 of B.Kothakota village was acquired @ Rs.4,000/- per acre in 1978 and it was enhanced to Rs.30,000/- by the reference Court and he also did not know about the acquisition of Acs.2-24 cents in Sy.No.652/2B @ Rs.4,000/- per acre and on reference in O.P.No.2/79, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per acre and the same was confirmed by the High Court. It is the case of the appellants that the market value of the lands acquired is more than Rs.18,000/- per acre. In support of the said contention one of the claimants i.e. appellant No.6 in A.S.No.1139 of 1999 was examined as R.W.1. He stated that prior to the acquisition of the lands in question there were two acquisitions, that in the first acquisition in 1978 the market value in respect of the land in Sy.No.636 of an extent of 2½ acres was fixed @ Rs.4,000/- per acre, that in the second acquisition in 1980 the market value in respect of land in Sy.No.704 of an extent of Acs.2-30 cents was fixed @ Rs.4,000/- per acre and in both the cases, on reference, the reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre. It is also stated that the said orders in O.P.No.2/1979, as per Ex.B.1, and another O.P. were also confirmed by the High Court vide Exs.B2 and B3 i.e. the judgment in A.S.Nos.549 and 1461 of 1980. In the cross- examination, he stated that the lands acquired in A.S.Nos.549 and 1461 of 1980 are at a distance of two furlongs from the lands acquired in question and both the said lands are acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to economically backward classes and that the lands acquired in both the proceedings, though situate in different directions, they are in equal distance from the village. Thus, it is not in dispute that the acquisitions made in each case, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the said land @ Rs.4,000/- per acre but the reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.30,000/- and the said orders were also confirmed by this Court as stated in Exs.B.2 and B.3. In fact, even according to the land acquisition officer, the lands acquired were just opposite to the land acquired on the previous occasions, and that one year back the land acquisition officer himself awarded compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any justification from deviating the compensation fixed by the reference Court in respect of the lands acquired on two earlier occasions i.e. @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Exs.B.1 to B.3 are relevant for fixing the appropriate market value and the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the same in view of the oral evidence of R.W.1 that the both the lands are at an equal distance from the village and are acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections which evidence is not rebutted by any other cogent evidence. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are allowed enhancing the market value in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.317/1, 2 & 3; 334/1, 2, 3 and 4; 335; and 331/1 & 2 totaling to an extent of Acs.12-18 cents in B.Kothakota village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, vide Award dated 26.03.1985, from Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,500/- per acre to Rs.30,000/- per acre and the respective appellants are entitled to the compensation proportionate to the extent of land acquired from them and they are also entitled to other benefits on the enhanced compensation as ordered by the Court below. No order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 16th June, 2010 CVRK