IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1242 of 1999 Between: The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam ..... APPELLANT AND B.Venkata Rao and 5 others .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1242 of 1999 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali) The Land Acquisition Officer is the appellant. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (2nd respondent since died, now represented by Respondents Nos.3 to 6) were the claimants whose sites of an extent of 0.00137 sq.ft. and 0.00280 sq.ft. along with structures were acquired for the purpose of road widening in pursuance of the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Award was passed in respect of the said sites vide Award No.6/87 dated 03.02.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @Rs.125-50 ps per sq.yard and awarded separate amounts @Rs.15,282-37 ps in respect of structures of the first claimant and Rs.26,767-40 ps in respect of structures of the second claimant. Not satisfied with the award, the claimants sought for reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and on such reference it was registered as O.P.No.770/1996 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Before the reference Court, the claimants were examined as PWs 1 and 2 who are father and son and marked Exs.A1 and A2. The reference Court although found that the claimants did not adduce any documentary evidence for enhancement of compensation, taking into consideration the potential location of the sites acquired, enhanced the compensation from Rs.125-50 ps to Rs.200/- per sq.yard. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the counsel. 4. Mrs.V.Preethi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the claimants did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of the enhancement of compensation and in the absence of such documentary evidence and in view of the finding of the reference Court in this regard, the compensation should not have been enhanced. She further submitted that whatever compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that the compensation was rightly enhanced by the reference Court on relevant grounds and the same does not require to be interfered with. 6. We have perused the material available on record including the oral evidence and also documentary evidence Exs.A1 and A2. PW 1 stated that the sites of the claimants were located in a potential area which is Jagadamba junction. The Collector’s office is located two furlongs and King George Hospital is located at a distance of about one furlong from the acquired sites. Jagadamba centre is just located at a distance of 50 yards from the acquired land and it is a centrally located place. Therefore, compensation was claimed @ Rs.1,000/- per sq.yard. 7. PW 2 in his evidence stated that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was very low. He further stated that his neighbour one Vankalayala Ranganadhagupta sold his land @Rs.1,800/- per sq.yard. He also got marked the sale deed covering the said sale as Ex.A1. He further referred to Ex.A2 which is a certified copy of the order in L.A.O.P.142/1988 and stated that the land covered under Ex.A2 is situated by the side of the acquired land. In the cross examination, he reiterated that the land acquired is situated near Jagadamba junction in Dandubazar area which is located in between Jagadamba junction and King George Hospital. He also admitted in his cross examination that he was not aware of the details of the land covered under Ex.A2 and further stated that the land covered under Ex.A2 is in Allipuram area. 8. From the evidence referred to above, it may be noted that Ex.A2 which was a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1986 would disclose that the land covered by the said sale deed was sold @Rs.1,800/- per sq.yard. In the cross examination of PW 2 it was not suggested to him on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer that the sale price mentioned in Ex.A2 was either incorrect or exaggerated. It is also on evidence which is not disputed that the sites acquired are located in a very prominent and potential area around which the office of the Collector and King George Hospital are located. The Reference Court therefore also recorded a finding that the acquired land is a centrally located place. In the circumstances, although Ex.A2 which is a document subsequent to the date of notification cannot be taken into consideration as it is, the said document can be perused for the purpose of assessing the prospective value of the land in the vicinity. It may also be noted that Sec.4(1) notification was published on 03.08.1984 and the document covered by Ex.A2 is dated 24.04.1986. In less than two years the land in the area was sold at Rs.1,800/- per sq.yard which shows steep increase of the land value. 9. Having regard to such steep increase in the value of the land in the area and also having regard to the central location of the sites acquired, we are of the opinion that the compensation @Rs.200/- per sq.yard is just and reasonable, and this is the conclusion reached by the reference Court also. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 23.06.2010 Dsr