IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO L.A.A.S. NO. 785 OF 2007 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) Sadasivpet ..... Appellant AND P.Ramulu .....Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) questioning the order and decree dated 1.12.2005 passed by the learned I Addl. Dist. Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.P.No.693 of 1995. The draft notification dated 19.11.1987 for acquisition of an extent of Ac.4.18 guntas of land in Sy.No.9 of Maddikunta village, was lapsed due to non- providing of the funds but since the house site pattas and certificates were issued to the beneficiaries, in anticipation of passing the award and some of the beneficiaries also constructed houses, draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 18.9.1993 and basing on the sale statistics, the appellant herein fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.4,000/- per acre by award Ex. B-1. Dissatisfied with such determination of the market value, the respondent herein sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.2.00 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sec.18 of the Act. On behalf of the respondent – claimant before the Reference Court, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 apart from examining two others as PWs 2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the Appellant, Land Acquisition Officer was examined as RW-1 and Exs. B-1 Award proceedings were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Reference Court determined the market value to Rs.80,000/- per acre and after deducting 1/3rd towards the development charges, fixed the market value at Rs.53,000/- per acre apart from granting other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – claimant. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader though the sale under Ex.A-3 is prior to the date of notification, the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance on it inasmuch as a small tract of land was sold for commercial purpose to a company, whereas the acquisition in the present case is for a large extent and for a social cause and, therefore, it cannot be a comparable sale for determination of the market value. Per contra, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent – claimant that the acquired land has the same potentiality as that of the land under Ex.A-3. He also contends that the trial court ought to have given allowance over and above the rate mentioned in Ex.A-3 for the time lag between the date of notification and the date of sale under Ex.A-3. He further contends that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in R.L.Jain (dead) by legal representatives Vs. DDA and others ([1]), the claimant is entitled to interest from the date of possession, but the Reference Court has failed to specify the same in the order impugned. As can be seen from the evidence of RW-1, possession of the land was taken on 11.3.1988. It is also on record that the notification issued earlier on 19.11.1987 had lapsed inasmuch as no provision for availability of funds was made. But since some of the beneficiaries had already constructed houses in anticipation of the Award, notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was issued on 18.9.1993 and award was passed on 25.9.1995. Exs. A-1 and A-2 are the sales, which took place after taking possession of the acquired land and, hence, the Reference Court has rightly discarded the same from consideration. That apart the sales under Exs. A-1 and A- 2 cannot be considered as comparable sales, inasmuch as they are for smaller extents on yardage basis. The sale under Ex.A-3 dated 16.4.1993 is prior to the date of notification. That apart, in view of the evidence of PW-3 that the acquired land is away from National High Way and the land under Ex.A-3 is situated by the said of National High Way, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.A-3, in the absence of any other tangible evidence to arrive at a just and reasonable market value. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the determination of the market value by the Reference Court. The Reference Court while granting interest component, has not specified the period for which the claimant is entitled to. In view of the decision Sunder Vs. Union of India ([2]) the claimant is entitled to interest on the market value, solaitum and additional market value. The Apex Court in R.L. Jain’s case has held that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of taking possession in the event possession is taken prior to the publication of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Inasmuch as possession is admittedly taken prior to the date of notification, the claimant is entitled to interest from the date of possession. Thus with the modification in the order and decree, awarding interest at the rate granted by the Reference Court from the date of possession, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao April 19, 2011 MAS. [1] 2004(4) SCC 79 [2] (2007)7 SCC 211