HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos.1482 of 2000 and 1494 of 2000 Dated: 16-04-2010 A.S.No.1482 of 2000 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. Appellant AND T.Pitchi Reddy Respondent. A.S.No.1494 of 2000 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. Appellant AND T. Koteswara Reddy Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.Nos.1482 of 2000 and 1494 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) As these two appeals are arising out of the common order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. These two appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer are directed against the common order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, dated 8.12.1999 in O.P.Nos.568 and 570 of 1992 whereby the compensation for the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.12.55 cents of land situated in Sy.No.155/4 of Indireswaram Village belonged to the claimants and others was acquired for the purpose of Padmaraja Vagu Tank by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 15.5.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed an award on 7.4.1991 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.30,000/- per acre. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, sought for reference to the Civil Court for due determination of the market value. On reference being made, the claimants appeared and filed claim statement before the reference Court claiming compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Since both the references arose out of common award, both the O.Ps. were clubbed together and common evidence was let in by the parties. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 sale deed was marked. On behalf of referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and the copy of the award was marked as Ex.B.1. P.W.1, the claimant in O.P.No.568 of 1992 deposed that as on the date of acquisition, the prevalent market value of the acquired land was Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre, and that they used to raise crops like Jonna, Groundnut, Cotton, Tobacco and used to get net income of Rs.5,000/- per acre, per annum. He deposed that the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 was sold for Rs.18,000/- per acre under Ex.A.1 sale deed, dated 29.4.1987 i.e. two years prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. To prove Ex.A.1, the purchaser was examined as P.W.2. Though there was lengthy cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, nothing was elicited to discredit their testimony and to say that the sale deed-Ex.A.1 was brought into existence to claim higher compensation nor any contra evidence was let in by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that the sale transaction under Ex.A.1 cannot be relied on. As seen from Ex.A.1, one acre of land was sold at Rs.18,000/- per acre two years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and though the claimants are entitled for escalation of price for two years, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.18,000/- per acre taking into consideration of Ex.A.1 sale deed, which, in our opinion, reflect the true market value prevalent as on the date of notification. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.A.1 cannot form basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. We see no merit in the appeals. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that the claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1]. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ APRIL 16, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516