THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1205 OF 1998 Dated. 08-12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Warangal …Appellant Vs. N.Malla Reddy and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1205 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.1 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon whereunder the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.4/- per square yard as against the market value of Rs.5,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. An extent of Ac.6.39 gunts of land in Sy.Nos.309, 310, 311 ofVeldana village belonging to the claimants was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society and a notification was issued on 12-05-1977 and possession was taken on 14-07-1978 and an award was passed on 27-03-1980 fixing the market value at Rs.5,000/- per acre with the available statutory benefits. At request by the claimants, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimants claiming that claimant No.1 and 2 are having 1/4th share each in the acquired land and the 3rd claimant is having ½ share. According to them, the acquired land has got potentiality and the property in the neighbourhood was sold for higher value and claimed compensation at Rs.6/- per square yard. On behalf of the claimants, PWS. 1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. On behalf of the respondents, protest petition as Ex.B-1 and award as Ex.B- 2 were marked. After considering the material, the learned Senior Civil Judge passed the impugned award against which this appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senor Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- In order to prove their claim, the claimant No.3 and 2 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 apart from supporting the evidence of PWS.3 to 5. According to claimants, the acquired land is close to the village, fit for house sites and it is also a fertile land and they used to raise commercial crops. They also claimed existence of wells. They also claim to have sold some land to PW.4 and 5 who have constructed the houses. PW.3 is the Patwari of the village and he spoke about the potentialities of the acquired land apart from it cultivability. PWs.3 and 5 claim to have purchased some properties under Exs.X-1 and X-2, which are agreements for construction of houses and Ex.X-1 dated 25-12-1960 in favour of PW.4 for 360 square yards at Rs.5/- per square yard in Sy.No.311 and Ex.X-2 is of the year 1974 in favour of PW.5 for 500 square yards at Rs.6/- per square yard. The above lands are said to be close to the village. It is true that Exs.X-1 and X-2 are unregistered agreements. The fact remains that in many parts of Telangana area, in the older days, most of the transactions are under agreements or un- registered sale deeds. The mere fact of non-registration is no ground to discard the oral evidence of PWS.4 and 5. Apart from it the very purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites. The lower court took the market value of Ex.X-2 into consideration and deducted the 1/3rd and fixed the market value at Rs.4/- per square yard. The other claims of the claimants were not considered. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the market value fixed by the lower court is a reasonable and does not call for interference. Accordingly the points are answered. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 08-12-2010 TSNR