IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.No.965 of 1999 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. ..... Appellant AND Neti Narasimha Sastry. .....Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J) The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order and decree dated 18.11.1997 in O.P.No.103 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows; The Land Acquisition Officer issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 10.06.1984 for acquisition of lands in Mukthinuthalapadu village for providing house sites to the weaker sections. As per the said notification, the land of an extent of Acs.11.62 cents situated at Mukthinuthalapadu village, belonging to the respondent/claimant, was acquired by the Government. Out of the said land, an extent of Acs.8.38 cents is situated in Sy.No.237/1 B 51 and Ac.02.78 cents is situated in Sy.No.238/1. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure prescribed under law, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre for the acquired land under the award No.6/85 dated 29.07.1985. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming higher compensation, and the same has been referred by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, for determination of the market value of the said acquired land and it was taken on file by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole, as O.P.No.103 of 1986. 3. On behalf of the Referring Officer, none was examined, but Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/claimant, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole, on consideration of the material available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre and the claimant is entitled to solatium @ 30% per annum on the enhanced compensation and is entitled to get additional amount @ 12% on the over and above of the land value from the date of Publication under Section 4(1) Notification i.e., 10.06.1984 till the date of taking possession i.e, 12.07.1984 and interest at 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession, later on at 15% per annum till the date of taking possession, later on at 15% per annum till the date of realisation or till the date of deposit whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that the Reference Court committed serious error in enhancing the compensation at an exorbitant rate. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. 7. We have perused the order under appeal. From a perusal of the material on record, it shows that the acquired land in question is situated within the local limits of Ongole Municipality and that in the year 1975, the market value of the said land was at Rs.30,000/- per acre. The Reference Court, relying upon the sale transactions under Exs.B2 to B4, enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per acre. Ex.B2 is the sale deed, dated 02.02.1982, situated in Sy.No.189 to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents. As per the evidence of R.W.2, he purchased the property under Ex.B2 for a sum of Rs.46,000/-. Ex.B3 is the sale deed, dated 30.03.1983, in Sy.No.196/3 to an extent of Ac.0.55 cents. Ex.B4 is the sale deed, dated 21.05.1982, to an extent of Ac.01.39 cents in Sy.No.209/B, for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The said sale transactions had taken place earlier to the issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, based on the sale transactions under Exs.B2 to B4 and the oral evidence available on record, the reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation @ Rs.22,000/- per acre. 8. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit warranting interference by this Court in the order under appeal. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium from the date of notification under Section 4(1) i.e., 10.06.1984 till the date of the award i.e., 29.07.1985. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date:21.12.2009 sj