IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 2122 OF 1998 Between: Smt. Annamreddi Suryakantha Gopi Chowdary and another Appellants AND The Land Acquisition Officer, & Tahsildar, Eluru, West Godavari District Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This appeal is preferred by the claimants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) questioning the order and decree dated 31.10.1997 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, in O.P. No. 150 of 1984. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the second appellant died and the first appellant, being daughter of the second appellant, is her only legal representative inasmuch as the husband of the second appellant predeceased her and there are no other brothers or sisters. The appellants are the claimants whose land to an extent of Ac.25.33 cents in Sy. No. 130/1 and 130/2C situated at Polasanipally village, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor, pursuant to the draft notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 27.11.1981 and Award No. 3/82-83 dated 25.3.1982 came to be passed fixing the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.5,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants sought reference to a Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Act and the Reference Court has enhanced the market value to Rs.25,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred an appeal in AS No. 880 of 1988 and this court by judgment dated 13.3.1992 set aside the said order passed in the O.P. remanding the same to the court below for consideration afresh taking into consideration the evidence already available on record. On remand, the Reference Court by order dated 31.10.1997, which is impugned in the present appeal, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.19,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are in appeal before this court. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that the sales under Exs. A-1 to A-5 which are registered extracts of sale deeds, the lands were sold for house sites and therefore, they are comparable sales. Under Ex.A-1 dated 25.7.1979, an extent of 265½ Sq. yards was sold at Rs.1,500/. Exs.A-2 to A-5 are subsequent sale transactions to the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act under which the land was sold at Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per Sq. yard. The Reference Court placing reliance on awards passed by it in respect of acquisition of land for similar purpose in the same village for which the market value was fixed at Rs.18,000/- under Exs. A-6 to A-8, has determined the market value, at Rs.19,000/- per acre. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants adverting to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and map attached thereto contends that inasmuch as the lands of the appellants are abutting the main road, enhancement of only Rs.1,000/- per acre over and above the market value fixed under Exs. A-6 to A-8 by the Reference Court is not justified. It is stated that admittedly the lands are situated on the main road from Bhimadole to Dwaraka Tirumala Road and it is also not in dispute that some parts of the land was sold prior and subsequent to the notification for the purpose of house site. The land in the instant case was also acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the land is situated abutting the main road leading from Bhimadole t o Dwaraka Tirumala, we are of the opinion that the market value of the land as on the date of notification can be fixed at Rs.22,000/- per acre instead of Rs.19,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.22,000/- per acre. It is needless to add that the appellants – claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao December 12, 2011 MAS