IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2216 of 2000 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, (LA), S.L.B.C., Devarakonda. … Appellant And: Talari Ramulu & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2216 of 2000 JUDGMENT:[Per AGR, J] The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Srisailam Left Bank Canal [SLBC], Devarakonda filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, questioning the enhancement of the compensation made in OP No.32 of 1989 dated 16.07.1993 by the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda. 2. On requisition being made by the Executive Engineer, S.L.B.C, Division No.II, Gandamvarigudem, Nalgonda, an extent of Ac.25.39 gts of land in Sy.Nos.791, 883, 832, 831, 884, 812, 886, 885, 894, 893 and 895 situate at Kurampalli, H/o Regatte village, Kangal Mandal of Nalgonda district, was acquired by the Government by issuing draft notification followed by draft declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short ‘the Act’] and the same was published in A.P. Gazette on 14.12.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying the necessary formalities, passed an award on 21.03.1989, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.13,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimants filed application under Section 18 of the Act for due reference of the matter to the Civil Court Act for determination of the just compensation. On reference being received by the civil Court and on issuance of the notices, the claimants filed claim statements seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre. 3. To substantiate their claim, PWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. Copy of the registered sale deed dated 10.11.1987 was marked as Ex.X-1. 4. P.W.1, who is the 9th claimant, stated that he owns an extent of Ac.2-07 of land, which was irrigated through well and used to raise crops like castor, bajra etc., and used to get yield of four kandies of crop per year. The said land, which is abutting the PWD road leading to Chandur from Nalgonda, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of SLBC canal. PW.2, who purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.833 from Bhusikampala Raju in the year 1987 under the original of Ex.X-1 registered sale deed dated 10.11.1987 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-, stated that at the time of his purchase, the market value prevalent was Rs.30,000/- and he purchased the same at the said rate. 5. No contra evidence has been adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to discredit the contents of Ex.X.1 or that the above sale transaction was brought into existence to claim more market value. The only ground on which the lower Court had not awarded Rs.30,000/- for the acquired land appears to be that PW.2 purchased the land under Ex.X-1 for agricultural purpose and whereas the lands under acquisition were acquired for SBLC canal. Therefore, the same cannot be a comparable sale appears to be erroneous and irrelevant when the agricultural lands were sold at Rs.30,000/- one year prior to issuance of notification and the same reflects the true market value even as on the date of acquisition notification. Further, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre, for which the claimants have not filed any appeal. 6. In view of the same, we see no other ground except to confirm the fixation of the market value of the acquired land by the reference Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer has not made out any case to interfere with the fixation of the market value. 7. We accordingly dismiss the appeal, confirming the fixation of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre by the reference Court . It is needless to say that the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% per annum not only on the enhanced compensation, but also on the additional market value and solatium as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in ‘Sunder vs. Union of India’.[1] There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th day of April, 2010. Bss/lrkm [1] AIR 2001 SC 1356