IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH [9TH] DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.433 of 1998 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.Unit, Huzurabad. … Appellant And: Bayapati Veeraiah and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.433 of 1998 JUDGMENT: [per AGR, J] This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, [for short ‘the Act’], by the Land Acquisition Officer, Huzurabad, is directed against the order and decree dated 28.08.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Huzurabad in OP No.30 of 1996, whereby, the reference made under Section 18 of the Act was answered in favour of the respondents-claimants, fixing the market value of the acquired land in an extent of Ac.13.17 guntas at Rs.15,300/- per acre as against Rs.6,500/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Though the appeal is filed as early as on 29.11.1997, the appellant had not taken any steps to supply 30 copies of the grounds along with covers, acknowledgments and notice forms, to enable the Registry to take out notices to the respondents. Even after 12 years, the respondents have not been served in the matter nor was there any stay obtained by the appellant with regard to execution of the decree. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the impugned order. 4. An extent of Ac.13.17 guntas of land belonging to the respondents-claimants was acquired in Deshrajpally and Dandepally villages of Elkathurthy Mandal, for excavation of D.B.M.20 canal. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 30.04.1986 followed by draft declaration. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying due formalities, by his award dated 23.07.1988 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,500/- per acre. The claimants, who have received the compensation under protest, filed application under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the Civil Court, claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- per acre. On reference being made, necessary claim statements were filed. 5. To substantiate the market value, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 31.12.1985 was marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 i.e., notice, award proceedings and award, were marked. 6. PW.1, who is one of the claimants, stated that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification was ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre and they used to raise cotton and maize and the annual income per acre was Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. PW.2, who is the vendor of Ac.0-22 guntas of dry land in Dandepally village sold the said land for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-, at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per acre on 31.12.1985, deposed that the distance between the land sold by him under Ex.A.1 and the acquired land is about 80 yards and both the lands are similar in fertility. He further stated that the lands belonging to Dandepalli, Deshrajpalli, Veeranarayanapur and Suraram villages are adjacent to each other and a canal passes through the said villages. PW.2 further deposed that the purchaser under Ex.A.1 does not have any lands adjacent to the land sold by him under Ex.A.1. PW.2 was not cross-examined on the aspect that the purchaser had not sold the adjacent land involved in Ex.A-1. The lower Court, after considering the evidence of PW.2 in the cross-examination that the canal is one mile away from the village Dandepalli, whereas the lands covered by Ex.A.1 are at a distance of 80 yards from Dandepalli village and after giving 30% deductions towards the value for the distance, fixed the market value at Rs.15,260/-, rounded to Rs.15,300/-. 7. When the agricultural land of Ac.0-22 guntas which is more than half acre was sold for Rs.21,000/- per acre, in fact, no deduction is called for, for the lands acquired. In case of small bits of land where it is sold for house plots, such deduction is also not called for. There is no much difference between the lands covered by Ex.A.1 and the lands now acquired which are within one mile away from each other having similar fertility and also cultivation of crops of similar nature. 8. In that view of the matter, the compensation fixed by the lower Court does not call for any interference and we do not see any merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.03.2010 Lrkm/bss