IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.38 of 1998 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, I.P.T., and Railways, Khammam. .. Appellant AND Inti Veeraiah Chowdary .. Respondent AND APPEAL SUIT No.2611 of 2001 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, I.P.T., and Railways, Khammam. .. Appellant AND Gundyala Indira Kumari .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.38 of 1998 and 2611 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) These two appeals by the State are directed against the awards in O.P.Nos.230 and 231 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kothagudem, rendered in consequence to the common order, dated 17.04.1995. 2. The subject lands were acquired for formation of a bridge and approaches at Kilometer No.13/8 on Bhadrachalam–Pocharam Road and after the draft notification, draft declaration, etc., were published and the award enquiry was duly made, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a compensation of Rs.5,000/- per acre as the then prevailing market value, by his award, dated 15.04.1985, in respect of the extent of Ac. 2.69 cents in S.Nos.10/1, 10/2/2, 17/1 and 17/2/2 of Nellipaka Village of Bhadrachalam Taluk. The claimants protested against the same, resulting in the references to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. The claimants contended that advance possession of the land was taken on 08.08.1974 itself along with standing chilly crop which could have yielded not less than eight quintals of chillies per acre. The claimants further contended that the lands are silted every year with Alluvial surface soil contributing to very high yields and the average yield of chilly crop in the lands was not less than 10 to 15 quintals per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer himself, at the time of his inspection, noted commercial crops being raised in the lands and the rate of chillies was at Rs.1,050/- per quintal during the relevant time which cost went upto Rs.1,600/- per quintal in the same year. The fixation of the price of chillies at Rs.617/- per quintal, deduction of cultivation expenses at 50% and not taking into account the average annual income of Rs.6,000/- per annum were unjust and the lands also have the potential of being used as house sites at a value of Rs.50/- to Rs.75/- per square yard. There are registered sale deeds in respect of adjacent lands for Rs.8,000/- per acre even during 1970-71 and the lands were worth Rs.45,000/- per acre which could have been the compensation granted. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer disputed the claims made by the claimants contending that the compensation fixed by the award was reasonable and just. 5. At the request of the parties, O.P.Nos.230, 231 and 232 of 1987 were tried jointly and during the enquiry, the reference Court examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.B-1 to B-4. 6. The reference Court rendered the impugned award referring to the evidence of the claimant in O.P.No.231 of 1987 as P.W.1 who reiterated the claims of the claimants getting an average income of Rs.10,000/- per acre per annum from 15 to 20 quintals of chillies per acre sold at a much higher price than estimated by the Land Acquisition Officer. He also claimed that the lands if sold as house sites can fetch Rs.30/- per square yard and desired the value of Rs.35,000/- per acre to be granted. The reference Court then referred to the evidence of P.W.2, the purchaser, under Ex.A-1-Sale Deed, dated 19.04.1971, under which he purchased Ac. 2.56 cents for Rs.20,000/-. P.W.2 also stated about the adjacent lands being the subject of O.P.No.134 of 1988. 7. The reference Court then referred to the evidence produced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer in support of the award and noted Ex.A-5-certificate from the Chief Planning Officer, Khammam, about the average yield of crops during 1982-83 to 1986-87 and Ex.A-6-certificate about the average prices of chillies during 1984-85 to 1988-89 issued by the Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam. Taking the average price of chillies at Rs.1,000/- per quintal and average yield of chillies at eight quintals per acre as certified by Exs.A-5 and A-6 and after deducting 50% of the probable income towards agricultural expenses, the reference Court found that the annual net income could have been Rs.4,000/- per acre and the capitalized value per acre multiplied by 11 times would have been Rs.44,000/-. The reference Court also noted the admission of R.W.1 about the lands being silted with Alluvial soil whenever there were floods and the land being very fertile and being useful even as house sites. R.W.1 also admitted about commercial crops being raised in the land. The reference Court referring to the relevant precedents on the aspect also observed the disadvantage to the claimants in having to purchase any alternative lands for their livelihood only in a non-agency area and taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances, fixed the compensation at Rs.15,000/- per acre along with the consequential statutory benefits. 8. The appellant contends in both the appeals that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by capitalization of value was reasonable and should have been confirmed in the absence of any positive evidence for the claimants and in the light of the inadmissibility of the documents relied on by the claimants in evidence. In the absence of any information about the comparable lands, the enhancement of value was excessive and is desired to be reduced to the award level. 9. Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant is heard and none appeared for the claimants/respondents in spite of service of notices in the appeals. 10. The point for consideration is whether the compensation fixed by the reference Court is just and reasonable or has to be interfered with? 11. The reference Court, in its assessment of the probable market value at the time of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, rightly referred to the public documents produced by the claimants in the shape of Exs.A-5 and A-6 and neither the certificate issued by the Chief Planning Officer, Khammam, about the average yield of crops in a period of five years during the relevant time nor the certificate issued by the Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam, about the average prices during the period of four years at the relevant time could have been questioned by the Land Acquisition Officer nor discarded by the reference Court in the absence of any explicable reason from the material on record. The average yield of chillies at eight quintals per acre and the average price at Rs.1,000/- per quintal during the relevant period was taken as the basis for calculating the capitalized value of the land per acre at Rs.44,000/- after deducting 50% of the income towards agricultural expenses. In the background of the admissions of R.W.1, examined on behalf of the appellant herein, about the fertility of the acquired land, its usefulness as house sites and its use for raising commercial crops, the value arrived at by the reference Court on the basis of Exs.A-5 and A-6 could have formed a very reasonable basis for indicating the then prevailing market value. That apart, there was the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and even if the evidence of P.W.1 was tainted with interestedness being a claimant, no reason has been shown to attribute any interestedness to P.W.2. The independent witness spoke about the transaction under Ex.A-1 about the purchase by himself on 19.04.1971 more than a decade before the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for purchase of land at Rs.20,000/- of an extent of Ac. 2.56 cents. Ex.A-1 could never have been criticized as probably brought into existence for any questionable purpose including making a claim for higher compensation. The estimate of the average yield at 1 ½ quintals of chillies per acre or its value at Rs.617/- per quintal by the Land Acquisition Officer does not appear to be justified in the face of Exs.A-5 and A-6. Admittedly, there are no sales statistics for any comparison and Ex.A-3-Statement about the average yield per acre between 1976- 77 to 1978-80 issued by the Statistical Officer, Khammam, and the certified copy of the decree in O.P.No.65 of 1990 in Ex.A-4 also are relevant material. 12. In spite of such positive evidence which could have justified arriving at a capitalized value of Rs.44,000/- per acre and in spite of the disadvantage to the claimants in having to secure any alternative land, if they wanted to pursue their occupation of agriculture, only in a non-agency area for a higher price, the reference Court practically fixed the market value at 1/3rd of the capitalized value which could have been arrived at on the basis of Exs.A-5 and A-6. There could not have been any further reduction in the assessment of the market value under the circumstances. 13. However, insofar as the grant of interest is concerned, the statutory interest has been granted only at 8% per annum in the first year, of course from earlier date than to which the claimants are entitled. As such interest could have been given only from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and not from the date of taking possession which was anterior, the award has to be modified to that extent only. 14. In the result, both the Appeals are dismissed without costs except to the extent of modifying the grant of interest to 9% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act till the expiry of one year therefrom and at 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20th January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT Nos.38 of 1998 and 2611 of 2001 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Date: 20th January, 2011 KL