THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. Nos. 2550, 2571, 2572, 2573, 2574, 2575, 2576, 2577, 2578, 2584, 2585 and 2586 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry, filed the present appeals against the common judgment dated 27.01.2004 passed in O.P. No. 81 of 1996 and batch by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, contending that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is on higher side and needs to be reduced. The present appeals relate to O.P. Nos. 82, 103, 92, 97, 100, 84, 87, 88, 85, 101, 83 and 86 of 1996 respectively. Brief facts of the appeals are that the lands of the respondents- claimants of different extents situated in Chigurukota and Chinakamanapudi villages of Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of drilling operations of O.N.G.C., by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. After following the due procedure prescribed, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award Nos. 2 and 3 of 1994 dated 25.07.1994, fixing the market value of the lands covered by award No. 2 of 1994, at Rs. 22,000/- per acre, and of the lands covered by award No. 3 of 1994 at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants sought reference of the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation and claimed the compensation at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. Before the reference Court, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.A1 to A5, while the Senior Assistant in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, O.N.G.C. was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs. B1 to B4. The reference Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, felt it just and proper to fix the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and accordingly enhanced the market value of the lands to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The reference Court also granted to the claimants, solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award, and interest at 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation, and accordingly answered the references, by the common judgment under appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the enhancement made by the reference Court is on higher side, and that it has enhanced the compensation, without following the established principles of law, in that the reference Court neither followed the multiplier method nor the conventional method of determining compensation on the basis of comparable sales, and thus the judgment under appeals cannot be sustained. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondents- claimants. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment under appeals and other material available on record. As can be seen from the record, initially, in the year 1988, O.N.G.C. has taken the acquired lands of the claimants, on lease, for drilling operations, for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per acre per annum. The lease amount was enhanced to Rs. 11,000/- in the year 1993. Thereafter, the Government acquired the lands by issuing notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 16.03.1993 and 29.01.1993. After following due procedure, the Special Deputy Collector, O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry, based on the sale transactions that took place prior to the acquisition of the lands, fixed the market value of the lands at Rs. 60,000/- per acre and sent proposals to the Joint Collector, for approval. However, the Joint Collector has fixed the market value of the lands situated at Chigurukota Village at Rs. 22,000/- per acre and the lands situated at Chinakamanapudi Village at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award Nos. 2 and 3 of 1994. Though R.W.1 in his evidence stated that the Joint Collector fixed the market value based on physical verification and valuations mentioned in the Basic Value Register, the reference Court held that the values mentioned in the Basic Value Register do not reflect the correct market values, and therefore cannot be relied upon. The reference Court further found that the Joint Collector did not explain as to what factors weighed with him for reducing the market value recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.60,000/- per acre, which he fixed based upon the sale of lands in Item No. 12/90 and 1/92. According to the claimants and as evident from the evidence adduced, the acquired lands were capable of yielding three commercial crops and they have got source of irrigation. The lands also contained deposits of oil and natural gas, as found by O.N.G.C. in the drilling operations conducted by them. The lands were also fit for conversion into house sites. As can be seen from the judgment under appeal, R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the L.A.O., also admitted about the fitness of the acquired lands for raising commercial crops and deposed about their fertility and high potential value. The claimants, in support of their case that the value of the acquired land is high, have got marked documents under Exs.A2 and A5, which relate to the sale transactions that took place in the years 1990 and 1992 and which are much prior to the issuance of 4(1) notifications dated 16.03.1993 and 29.01.1993. The said documents reflect the value of the lands in and around the acquired lands at Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Exs. A3 and A4 are the documents relating to sale of lands pertaining to the post-notification period. They indicate that an acre of land was sold at Rs. 1,90,000/- and Rs. 2,20,000/- in the years 1997 and 2001 respectively. These documents would go to show that there was increase in the prices of the lands. The reference Court, having considered these documents and the admitted high potentiality of the acquired lands, which include soil fertility of growing three crops per annum, containing oil and gas deposits and suitable for house sites, has arrived the market value of the lands at Rs. 1,00,000/- and accordingly made enhancement of the compensation, and such enhancement, in our considered opinion, is just and proper and needs no interference therewith. The reference Court, in making the enhancement, did not follow the multiplier method or the conventional method, is no ground to interfere with the award passed by the reference Court, enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, which is just and proper. At any rate, even if the multiplier method is followed and the appropriate multiplier ‘10’ is made applicable, the value of the lands would come to more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, viewed from this angle also, we are of the considered opinion that the enhancement made by the reference Court cannot be said to be on higher side, warranting interference by this Court. The appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 29th June, 2011 IBL