HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S.Nos. 1532 of 2001 and 220 of 2002 Date: 31-01-2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhongir. ……… Appellant and Yenugu Laxma Reddy and another ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S.Nos. 1532 of 2001 and 220 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Since these two Appeals, one at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer and the other at the instance of the claimants, are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), against the very same judgment and decree, dated 26-09-2000 passed in O.P.No.21 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, they taken up together for disposal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the lands of the claimants to an extent of Ac.8-64 cents in Sy.Nos.277, 272 and 263 of Hanumapur village, were acquired through the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, for the purpose of providing house sites to the SC and BC people. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, who passed the award on 31-01-1987 fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre. The claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, sought for reference, and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court below under Section 18 of the Act. 3. In the Court below, during the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked, whereas on behalf of the respondent therein, no oral evidence was adduced, however Exs.B-1 and B-2, which are the signatures of PW-1 on the notice under Section 9 and 9(3) of the Act, were marked. After considering the evidence adduced on either side, the Court below enhanced the market value from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, these Appeals, one assailing the correctness and another seeking further enhancement, are filed. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants. 5. Having heard the counsel and on perusal of the material, the only point, which arises for consideration, is whether the Court below has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands in a just and proper manner? 6. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid chequered events and the enhancement of the compensation. The case of the claimants is to the effect that having regard to the very factum of acquisition for the purpose of house sites, it is apparent that the lands are potential and they are having very much demand with higher market value than the one which is fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court below. Further, it is also their case that in view of the location and potentiality of the land, the Court below should have approached capitalization method while fixing the market value rather than treating it as agricultural land and acreage wise. In support, on behalf of the claimants, one of the claimants was examined as PW-1. Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are the sale transactions, dated 18- 01-1985, 18-12-1985 and 13-05-1986 respectively, pertain to the sales of small extents of plots ranging from 200 to 400 square yards. Hence, the case of the claimants is that having regard to these sale transactions, of which one is prior to the date of notification and the other two are latter, it amply shows that the lands are sold in plots rather than acreage wise, and it would not show that the lands are being used for agricultural purpose. 7. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Court below, it is seen that the documents in Exs.A-1 to A-3 were not accepted, nor there is any consideration by fixing the market value by way of potentiality much less capitalization. Without accepting Exs.A-1 to A- 3, the Court below straight away though it fit to enhance the market value from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre for which, even according to the learned Government Pleader, there is no basis nor any material in support. Admittedly there being no evidence nor any martial to show the nature and potentiality of the lands and whether the proper method for assessment could be capitalization or otherwise, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to both the parties herein to substantiate the same. 8. In the result, both the Appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree, dated 26-09-2000 in O.P.No.21 of 1987 passed by the Court below are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties. It is, however, open to both parties to lead any further evidence, either oral or documentary. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 YCR