HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY DT. 22-3-2010 AS No. 1976, 2026 and 1979 of 1999 AS NO.1976/1999 1. The Tahsildar, Atmakur, Kurnool District. …Appellant V. 1.Golla Narayana ..Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY AS No. 1976, 2026 and 1979 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Since all these appeals arise out of the common order, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. These three appeals by the Tahsildar, Atmakur, Kurnool District, arise out the common award, are directed against the common award and decrees dt. 8-2- 1999 passed in OP Nos. 619/89, 1242/88 and 139/90 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur respectively. The brief facts that led to the filing of the appeals are as follows: An extent of Ac.5-20 cents comprising in various survey numbers, situate in the village limits of Maddur, belonging to the claimants, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society by issuing a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), which was published in the Gazette on 14-7-1984. Possession of the land was taken on 7-8-1984. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with all formalities and on obtaining sales statistics, numbering nine (9) preceding three years from the date of issuance of notification, from the Sub- Registrar, passed an award being award No.6/84-85 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. After receiving the reference, the Civil Court issued notices to the claimants. In response to the same, the claimants filed claim statements claiming compensation at Rs.60,000/- per acre. Since all OPs were filed against one and the same award covered by same notification, the reference court clubbed all the OPS and common evidence was recorded in OP No.619/1989. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, they examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A-1. On behalf of he referring officer, the Mandal Revenue Officer was examined as R.W.1 and award copy was marked as Ex.B-1. P.W.1 who is the claimant in OP No.619/1989 stated that the acquired lands are wet lands, irrigated under the waters of K.C. canal, and suitable for house sites. He further stated that they used to raise paddy and groundnut crops and used to get the yield of 40 bags of paddy per acre and 30 bags of groundnut per acre and used to get a net income of Rs.15000/- per acre per annum. He further stated that the village is a developed one. P.W.1 filed Ex.A-1, registration copy of sale deed dt. 6-6-1984, under which an extent of 3/4th cent was sold for a consideration of Rs.1300/-. The land covered under Ex.A-1 and the acquired lands are similar in nature. To prove the transaction covered under Ex.A-1, the claimants examined the vendor under Ex.A-1 as P.W.2. He categorically deposed that he sold the land ie., 3/4th cent covered under Ex.A-3 for Rs.1300/-, which works out to Rs.36/- per sq.yard; Rs.1,74,240/- per acre, and the land covered under Ex.A-1 and the acquired lands are similar in nature. In support of the award, R.W.1 was examined. Except marking award copy as Ex.B-1, no sales deeds, which were relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value at Rs.12,000/-, were filed on behalf of the Referring Officer. Though the evidence of P.W.1 disclosed that the acquired lands are fertile and suitable for house sites, R.W.1, who is the Mandal Revenue Officer, did not depose in his evidence that the acquired lands are fertile lands. But the Land Acquisition Officer, in his award, observed that the acquired land is fertile and it is a single wet crop land. Since the extent covered under Ex.A-1 is a small bit, it cannot be taken as a comparable sale for fixation of the market value. The reference court though observed that the sale of small bit of land covered under Ex.A-1 cannot be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the acquired land fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.25,000/- per acre on the ground that the sale covered under Ex.A-1 is prior to Sec.4(1) notification; the acquired lands are adjacent to the village and the claimants used to raise paddy and groundnuts. No suggestion was put to P.W.1 that claimants are not used to raise paddy and groundnut crops to discard his evidence. Even on a conservative estimate, when the lands are cultivated through the waters of K.C. canal, it is expected to get Rs.3000/- per acre after excluding the expenditure incurred for cultivation and 10 multiplier is applied, it would come to Rs.30,000/- per acre. In view of the same, the compensation fixed by the reference court at Rs.25,000/- per acre is considered to be just and reasonable compensation as on the date of notification and it does not call for any interference by this court. All the three appeals are accordingly dismissed. It is needles to state that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits as per law declared by the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1]. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ ‐ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Date: 22-O3-2010 kmr [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516