THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2112 OF 2001 AND AS NO.3366 OF 2004 Dated. -12-2010 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur .…Appellant/Respondent Vs. M.Madanna and others ....Respondents/appellants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2112 OF 2001 AND AS NO.3366 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) Both appeals arise out of the common judgment in O.P.No.16 of 1998 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. An extent of Ac.2.70 ½ cents in Sy.Nos.489-B2 and 1101-A2, situated at Yadiki town was acquired for establishing an Agricultural Market Yard and a draft notification was given on 04-09-1980 and an award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer has categorised the land into two groups and for one group, he has awarded the market value at Rs.3,500/- per acre and for another group it was fixed at Rs.2,500/- per acre. As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.5220 of 193 at the request of the claimants the matter was referred to the civil court under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The claimants filed a claim statement contending that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not real and the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into consideration the potentialities and the fact that the value of the land is about Rs.10/- to Rs.24/- per square yard. On behalf of the claimants, CWs.1 to 7 were examined and marked Exs.X-1 to X-10. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, PW.1 was examined and marked Ex.A-1. After considering the evidence on record the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,752/- and gave a deduction of 1/3rd and fixed the same at Rs.19,048/- per acre and also granted all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the appeal AS 2112 of 2001 and the claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed the cross appeal, i.e., AS 3366 of 2004. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is real and sustainable? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any further enhancement? (3) Whether the order of the trial court requires an interference by this Court? (4) To what relief? POINTS:- It is needless to say that in the reference before the court the claimants are in the position of the plaintiffs and the burden is on them to prove the potentialities and the market value. In support of the claim, CW.1 who is the fourth claimant was examined and he spoke about the location of the land where they reside and on the southern the acquired land there is a road passing from Gooty to Tadpatrii and several residential houses are also have come up and one S.Sunku Bai has purchased Ac.0.04 cents of land under a registered sale deed dated 12- 03-1986 for a consideration of Rs.39,000/- and the same is marked as Ex.X-1. So also he spoke that another extent of Ac.0.04 cents was purchased by one Venkateshu on 21-02-1986 and he spoke about the purchase under Exs.X-2 and X-3 by one Saraswathamma and all these transactions are prior to the notification and as on the date of acquisition the market value is not less than Rs.24/- per square yard. PW.2 is the vendee under Ex.X-1 and spoke about the purchase of land in Sy.No.1091-A and 1091-B for Rs.3,900/- and CW.3 is the purchaser under Ex.X-2 so also the purchasers under Exs.X-3 to X-5 are examined as CWS.4 to 6, who spoke about the purchase of their extents and payment of consideration. CW.7 is the Advocate who was appointed to inspect the suit locality and he filed the report opining about the potentialities and the development. The learned Senior Civil Judge considering the evidence of claimants and also the documents and also location of the property did not take into consideration Exs.X-1 to X-4. He relied upon Ex.X-5 dated 30-06-1980 which is said to be more proximate in time to the date of notification where-under CW.6 purchased Ac.0.14 cents for a consideration of Rs.4,000/- and the value of the land per acre comes to Rs.28,752/-. The learned Senior Civil Judge did not accept the contentions of the Government that the sale transaction is not real; there is nothing on record to show that CW.6 in any way interested in the claimants to bring into existence a sale transaction to benefit the claimants. The learned Senior Civil Judge therefore rightly taken into consideration Ex.X-5 and gave deduction of 1/3rd and fixed the market value. The counsel for the appellants in the cross appeal also could not show as to why the market value arrived at by the lower court is low and as to how they are entitled for further claim. The lower court has considered all the documents filed by the claimants and discarded Exs.X-1 to X-3. We do not find any error in the judgment of the lower court and the lower court has also granted all statutory benefits which the claimants are entitled to. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, both appeals are deserves to be dismissed. If there is any ambiguity about the entitlement of the interest over the solatium, it is needless to say that the claimants will be entitled to the same as it is part of the compensation and the claimants can claim the same if the decree is silent. Accordingly, the points answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suits are dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 23-12-2010 TSNR