THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Appeal Suit No.2750 of 1999 Dated 22-06-2010 Between : Perla Siva Reddy .. Appellant And The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Canals, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Appeal Suit No.2750 of 1999 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali) -- This appeal, filed by the claimant, is directed against the order, dated 09-07-1999 in O.P.No.34 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, whereunder enhancement of compensation as sought for by the appellant was rejected on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity, ‘Act’) in respect of the Award No.25/85-86, dated 28-02-1986. An extent of Ac.1.10 cents of land situate in Sy.No.317/2 of Yerraguntla Village, Kamalapuram Mandal was acquired for the construction of quarters for the staff during the execution of Mylavaram Irrigation Project. Notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in the A.P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 31-05-1984. Pursuant thereto, the respondent conducted enquiry for fixing the market value and after such enquiry, determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.15,000/- per acre vide Award No.25/85-86, dated 28-02-1986. As the appellant was not satisfied with the market value as fixed by the respondent, on a request of the appellant, the matter was referred to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference was registered as O.P.No.34 of 1990 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The Reference Court declined to enhance the compensation, thus confirmed the Award. Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal has been filed. Heard both sides. The appellant sought for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 (Impugned Award) and Ex.A2 (Award Proceedings) dated 28-02- 1986 were marked on behalf of the respondent. Besides examining himself as R.W.1, the appellant got examined R.W.2 and R.W.3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 and X2. Ex.B1, a certificate dated 17-03-1999 of the Additional Mandal Revenue Inspector, Yerraguntla, was marked to show the market value of certain lands in the adjacent survey numbers in respect of which sale transactions took place during the years 1986-1998. Ex.B2 is the Notice of Award in Form No.9 issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act in respect of the land measuring an extent of Ac.4.14 cents acquired in Sy.No.358 from R.W.3. Ex.B3 is a registered sale deed, dated 25-11-1998 in respect of sale of an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of land in Sy.No.317 for Rs.33,000/-. Ex.B4 is a registration extract dated 09-07-1998 in respect of the sale of land in Sy.No.568/9. Ex.B5 is another sale transaction dated 14-03-1989 in respect of the land in Sy.No.315. Ex.X1 is a copy of the sale deed, dated 25-11-1998 in respect of a sale of land in Sy.No.317. R.W.2 was examined to support Ex.X1. Ex.X2 is a copy of the Award No.2/88, dated 13-11-1996 relating to R.W.3. The documents referred to above covered by Exs.B1 to B5 and Ex.X1 and X2 relate to the transactions from 1986 to 1998. The acquisition in the case on hand was in the year 1984. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the documents referred to above. These documents may at the most show that there was fast growth in the vicinity of the acquired land, but the same cannot constitute basis to enhance compensation in respect of the subject land which was acquired prior to the transactions covered under the aforesaid documents. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that the acquired land is adjacent to the industrial complex and as on the date of acquisition the area was in the process of development. It is also in the evidence of P.W.1 that the subject land is adjacent to Sy.No.327 in respect of which two sale transactions took place approximately at the same time when the subject land was notified for acquisition i.e., 31-05-1984. One transaction related to a sale admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents vide registered sale deed document No.129, dated 10-03-1984 and the other related to a sale of an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land vide sale deed document No.339, dated 25-04-1984. As per the document No.129, dated 10-03-1984 the market value was Rs.16,667/- per acre and as per the document No.339, dated 25-04- 1984 the value was Rs.33,333/- per acre. It may be noted that the document No.339, dated 25-04-1984 is very proximate to the acquisition of the subject land. As noted above, admittedly, the subject land was at the end of the residential locality and by the side of industrial complex. The area was in the process of the development. The sale transaction reflected in document No.339, dated 25-04-1984, therefore, could have been taken as the basis for determining the market value of the subject land. The said document cannot be discarded on the ground that it related to a small extent of land for the reason that the subject land was also acquired for the purpose of construction of residential quarters. The Reference Court without considering this material on record proceeded on the basis of the transaction related to R.W.2 and R.W.3 which are not relevant for determining just compensation for the subject land. We, therefore, accept the document No.339, dated 25-04-1984 as a relevant document for the purpose of fixing the market value. As per the said document the market value was Rs.33,333/- per acre. We are of the opinion that from out of the said amount, 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards infrastructure such as provision of roads. The market value of the subject land therefore would be Rs.22,000/- per acre (fraction ignored) which in our opinion is just and reasonable. In the above analysis, the Appeal is allowed in part modifying the Award No.25/85-86, dated 28-02-1986 passed by the respondent and the compensation in respect of the subject land is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per acre. The appellant is also entitled to all other benefits as awarded by the respondent on the enhanced compensation from the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 22-06-2010. skmr